Studies of the Book of Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Studies of the Book of Mormon is the published version of a set of manuscripts and letters written by LDS General Authority B.H. Roberts at the beginning of the 20th century. The manuscripts are titled “Book of Mormon Difficulties: A Study,” “A Book of Mormon Study,” and “A Parallel.” Roberts stated that the purpose of this work was to examine the Book of Mormon in detail in order to determine what material opponents might be able to use to support claims that the book was produced using sources available to Joseph Smith Jr. Roberts focuses in detail on Ethan Smith’s 1823 View of the Hebrews, which was published five years before the Book of Mormon, to illustrate the claim that the book could have been used as a “ground plan” for constructing the Book of Mormon. Roberts postulates a number of parallels between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews. LDS scholars state that a number of issues pointed out by Roberts have since been resolved, and that there are a number of differences between the two books that can also be illustrated.

Roberts wrote the manuscripts from the perspective of a critic. As a result, they are often used by critics of Mormonism to promote the claim that Roberts lost his belief in the Book of Mormon during the later years of his life. The cover letters included with the manuscript in which Roberts explains his purpose in performing the study are sometimes dismissed or omitted from discussion. Subsequent to authoring the manuscripts Roberts published other works, such as ‘’New Witnesses for God’’, in which he publicly continued to affirm his belief in the Book of Mormon. Critics suggest that Roberts’s public and private views on the book were in contradiction. There are no known published statements by Roberts claiming a “loss of faith” or belief in the book.

Contents

[edit] Roberts’ purpose in performing the study

The manuscripts were never intended for publication, but were produced for the purpose of presenting Roberts’ observations to Mormon church general authorities. [1] Roberts suggested that church leaders would find the material in the studies “of very great importance since it represents what may be used by some opponent in criticism of the Book of Mormon.” [2] In particular, Roberts was concerned about the youth of the church. In a letter addressed to church leaders, Roberts states

“I am most thoroughly convinced of the necessity of all the brethren herein addressed becoming familiar with these Book of Mormon problems, and finding the answer for them, as it is a matter that will concern the faith of the Youth of the Church now as also in the future, as well as such casual inquirers as may come to us from the outside world.”[3]

Roberts wrote several letters regarding his studies, in which he explained his reasons for performing them.[4] In a letter dated March 15, 1923 addressed to Heber J. Grant and the Council and Quorum of Twelve Apostles, Roberts describes the purpose of these studies:

’’In writing out this my report to you of those studies, I have written it from the viewpoint of an open mind, investigating the facts of the Book of Mormon origin and authorship. Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. The report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a 'study of Book of Mormon origins,' for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well as that which has been produced against it. I do not say my conclusions for they are undrawn. It may be of great importance since it represents what may be used by some opponent in criticism of the Book of Mormon. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.’’[5]

[edit] Overview

Roberts related three conditions by which a book might be considered to have been derived from another: [6] “the identity of incident, or order of events, is not necessary to the fact of one thing suggesting another. It will be sufficient if it is proven (first) that there is priority of publication, a priority of sufficient duration for the subject matter to become known in the vicinity where both circumstances come into existence. (Second), where the likelihood is very great that the person producing the later circumstance, incident or book has been in contact with the earlier circumstance, incident or book. And (third), where the earlier circumstance, incident or book has subject matter within it of sufficient resemblance to suggest the later product, incident or book.”

  1. Roberts states that the book claimed to have been plagiarized must have been produced prior the second book. The first edition of Ethan Smith’s book was published in 1823 in Vermont, while the Book of Mormon was published in 1830.
  2. Roberts states that the person writing the disputed book must have been able to come into contact with the first book. Roberts states that the likelihood of Joseph Smith coming into contact with ‘’View of the Hebrews’’ was “a very close certainty.” [7] Joseph Smith himself publicly stated that he was aware of the book. Smith mentions Ethan Smith and cites passages from ‘’View of the Hebrews’’ in an article published in the ‘’Times and Seasons’’ in June 1842.[8]
  3. The book being plagiarized must have sufficient similarity in content to the subsequent book. Roberts states that these conditions could be considered to be met when comparing the content of ‘’View of the Hebrews’’ with the ‘’Book of Mormon’’. The bulk of the manuscripts deal with this subject.[9]

[edit] Roberts’ list of similarities

In the sections “Book of Mormon Difficulties: A Study” and “A Parallel,” Roberts discusses elements which he considers to be similar between the two books.

[edit] Origin of the inhabitants of the American continents

Roberts states that both ‘’View of the Hebrews’’ and the ‘’Book of Mormon’’ make the claim that the Hebrews “occupied the whole extent of the American continents.” [10] In addition, Roberts states that Mormon speakers and writers often ignorantly claim that the Book of Mormon was the first book to represent that the American Indians were descendents of Hebrews. He points out that Ethan Smith and many other writers made this claim earlier, and that this idea was “very generally obtained throughout New England.”[11] A number of parallels presented by Roberts require the belief, as Roberts himself believed, that the people described in the Book of Mormon arrived at and populated an empty North and South American continent, and that all people on those continents descended from these people. The application of a limited geography theory of Book of Mormon civilization and population removes a number of these parallels. [12]

[edit] Destruction of Jerusalem

Roberts notes that the entire first chapter of ‘’View of the Hebrews’’ describes the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. He compares this to information given in first chapters of the Book of Mormon, in which Lehi prophesies of the destruction of Jerusalem prior to their leaving the area of the city around 600 B.C.E.[13] LDS scholars point out that ‘’View of the Hebrews’’ makes no reference at all the earlier destruction of Jerusalem in Lehi's time by the Babylonians circa 586 B.C.E.” [14]

[edit] Differences regarding signs of Jesus Christ’s birth and death

Roberts points out that the Book of Mormon describes the “spectacular and dramatic nature of the signs given among Book of Mormon peoples as to the birth, crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Christ” and the “total absence of anything in the work of our Vermont author [Ethan Smith] on these very remarkable incidents.” Roberts suggests that there are other sources which might be claimed to supply some of this material. [15]

[edit] Stories of a “lost book”

An account is given in ‘’View of the Hebrews’’ in which “an old Indian” stated that his ancestors “had a book which they had for a long time preserved,” but that “having lost the knowledge of reading it…they buried it with an Indian chief.”[16] This is compared with Joseph Smith’s story of the retrieval of the golden plates from a stone box in the hill Cumorah in New York. [17]

The discovery of what is claimed to be a Jewish phylactery by a “Mr. Merrick” is described in ‘’View of the Hebrews’’. The item was dug out of the ground and “contained four folded leaves of old parchment.” [18] The leaves were described as being “dark yellow” and were said to contain Hebrew writing. Roberts speculates that the “dark yellow” might suggest “gold color” and adds a note: “Query: Could all this have supplied structural work for the Book of Mormon?” [19]

[edit] Breastplate and the Urim and Thummin

Ethan Smith describes a breastplate “in resemblance of the Urim and Thummin” made of a white conch shell with two holes in it to which are fastened buckhorn white buttons “as if in imitation of the precious stones of the Urim.”[20] Roberts compares this to the Urim and Thummim which Joseph Smith said that he was given for the purpose of translating the plates.[21]

[edit] ”Egyptian” hieroglyphics

Hieroglyphic paintings found in the area of New Mexico are described in ‘’View of the Hebrews’’. [22] Roberts writes “ Was this sufficient to suggest the strange manner of writing the Book of Mormon…in an altered Egyptian?”[23]

[edit] Barbarous and civilized people

Ethan Smith was challenged regarding his postulation of a highly civilized society among ancient Americans, which was in contrast with the nomadic lifestyle of the American Indians of his day. Smith supposes that the Hebrews who arrived on the American continent split into two classes, and that “most of them fell into a wandering idle hunting life” but that “more sensible parts of this people associated together to improve their knowledge of the arts.”[24] Smith believed that the more civilized portion of this society separated from the more primitive group, who “lost the knowledge of their having descended from the same family.” As a result of their “tremendous wars,” the civilized group “became extinct.”[25] This situation is compared to the story of the Nephites and Lamanites, who also split into two groups and had frequent wars, which ultimately resulted in the destruction of the more civilized Nephites. [26] It is noted by LDS scholars that in the Book of Mormon the two groups retained their knowledge of having descended from the same family up until the time that the Nephites were destroyed, contrary to Smith’s supposition in ‘’View of the Hebrews’’ that this knowledge was lost.[citation needed]

[edit] Isaiah and the scattering and gathering of Israel

Roberts points out that both ‘’View of the Hebrews’’ and the ‘’Book of Mormon’’ include extensive quotations from Isaiah regarding the scattering and future gathering of Israel. Roberts adds the note “Query: Did the Author of the Book of Mormon follow too closely the course of Ethan Smith in this use of Isaiah would be a legitimate query.” [27] It is noted by LDS scholars that ‘’View of the Hebrews’’ includes many scriptural prophecies about the restoration of Israel, including Deuteronomy 30; Isaiah 11, 18, 60, 65; Jeremiah 16, 23, 30-31, 35-37; Zephaniah 3; Amos 9; Hosea and Joel. Of the scriptures cited, only Isaiah 11 appears in the Book of Mormon. [28]

[edit] Quetzalcoatl

Ethan Smith discusses the legends of the “bearded white god” Quetzalcoatl and proposes that this “lawgiver” or “Mexican messiah” was actually Moses.[29] Smith also suggests that this belief held by the people of Mexico at the time of Montezuma allowed the Spanish to easily conquer the country because “the Mexicans mistook the white bearded invaders from the east for the descendents of their long cherished culture-hero Quetzalcoatl.”[30] Roberts note states “The legitimate query: did this character spoken of in the ‘’View of the Hebrews,’’ published five years before the Book of Mormon, furnish the suggestion of the ‘’Christ’’ on the ‘’Western Continent?’’ [31]

[edit] Controversy regarding Roberts’ belief in the Book of Mormon

The studies have, over the years, generated a significant amount of controversy regarding whether or not Roberts lost his belief in the Book of Mormon.

[edit] Critic's view of Roberts' statements

A number of critical publications have made use of this work to present, as an established fact, that Roberts "eventually concluded” that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon “by drawing upon his own natural talent and materials like Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews."” [32] One such example is a pamphlet produced by James R. Spencer in 1991 titled “The Disappointment of B. H. Roberts: Five Questions That Forced a Mormon General Authority to Abandon the Book of Mormon.” Some critics of the LDS church claim that the manuscripts were “suppressed.”[33]

[edit] LDS view of Roberts' statements

LDS scholars point out that statements implying the Roberts lost his faith never rely on Roberts’ own words.[34] Peterson points out that Spencer talks of Roberts’ “waning confidence in the Book of Mormon” and claims that he “had to admit the evidence proved Joseph Smith was a plagiarist.” Peterson notes that “in each and every case, these words are Mr. Spencer’s, and not Elder Roberts’s… If Elder Roberts had explicitly declared his supposed loss of belief, Mr. Spencer would eagerly have included so damning a statement. He did not, because no such statement exists.”

Brigham Madsen states that Roberts “used the Book of Mormon as a chief means of winning converts, announcing in one letter to his missionaries 'that it has survived all the ridicule and mockery of those who have scorned it.'”[35]

Roberts stated in his book ‘’New Witnesses for God’’:

"...no one acquainted with these works could possibly regard them as being the source whence Book of Mormon incidents or customs of Book of Mormon peoples were drawn, a fact which will be more apparent after we have considered—as we shall later consider—the originality of the Book of Mormon."[36]

[edit] Inclusion and omission of Roberts’s cover letters

Sterling McMurrin states in his brief biography of Roberts that

“[T]hose interested in the author's conclusions set forth in the manuscript should not neglect the statements affirming his belief in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon that appear in the letters that are a part of the controversy that resulted from a reading of the manuscript by Church officials. The contrast of his manuscript, composed as an attempt to come to grips with a basic problem that he apparently believed would yield to scholarly analysis, with his affirmation, in the heat of controversy, of his faith that the objective foundation of Mormonism is not to be doubted raises the interesting question of what Roberts did in fact believe about the Book of Mormon in his latest years. That he continued to profess his faith in the authenticity of the book seems to be without question, despite the strong arguments and statements in his study that would appear to explicitly express a conviction that it is not authentic.”[37]

One LDS scholar pointed out the lack of acknowledgement of Roberts’s cover letters in several of Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s publications critical of Mormonism. [38]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Roberts 1983 Roberts writes in a letter to Elizabeth Skolfield dated 14 March 1932: “I am forwarding you with this mail an introductory chapter to a work of mine which is in typewritten form under the title ‘Book of Mormon Study.’ It makes 435 pages of typewritten matter. It is from research work I did before going to take charge of the Eastern States Mission [in May 1922]. I had written it for presentation to the Twelve and the Presidency, not for publication, but I suspended the submission of it until I returned home, but I have not yet succeeded in making the presentation of it, although a letter of submission was made previous to leaving the E. S. M. [in 1927]. I have made one feeble effort to get it before them since returning home, but they are not in a studious mood.”
  2. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 58
  3. ^ Roberts 1983, p. 47
  4. ^ Copies of the cover letters written by Roberts appear in the first edition of ‘’Studies of the Book of Mormon’’, published by University of Illinois Press in 1985. In the second edition, published by Signature Books in 1992, these cover letters were omitted.
  5. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 57-58 Roberts also states “It is not necessary for me to suggest that maintenance of the truth of the Book of Mormon is absolutely essential to the integrity of the whole Mormon movement, for it is inconceivable that the Book of Mormon should be untrue in its origin or character and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be a true church.”
  6. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 235
  7. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 235
  8. ^ Joseph Smith, ‘’Times and Seasons’’ 3:15 (1 June 1842): 813–815. Discussing the Ten Tribes, Smith states ”[W]e shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows… Dr. West of Stockbridge, relates that an old Indian informed him, that his fathers in this country had not long since, been in the possession of a book, which they had for a long time, carried with them, but having lost the knowledge of reading it, they buried it with an Indian chief-View of the Hebrews, Pg. 223.” Regard some supposed Jewish phylacteries that Ethan Smith claimed had been discovered, Joseph Smith quoted ‘’View of the Hebrews’’ directly: "’It is said by Calmet, that the above texts are the very passages of Scripture, which the Jews used to write on the leaves of their phylacteries. These phylacteries were little rolls of parchment whereon were written certain words of the law. These they wore upon their forehead, and upon the wrist of the left arm.’-Smith's view of the Hebrews. Pg. 220. “
  9. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 235
  10. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 241
  11. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 323
  12. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 93 Roberts states “[C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi...part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah...live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.”
  13. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 334
  14. ^ Welch 1992
  15. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 236
  16. ^ Smith 2002, p. 167
  17. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 324
  18. ^ Smith & 2002 164-165
  19. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 326
  20. ^ Smith 2002, p. 108
  21. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 327-328
  22. ^ Smith 2002, p. 135-136
  23. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 330
  24. ^ Smith 2002, p. 126
  25. ^ Smith 2002, p. 126
  26. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 330-334
  27. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 335
  28. ^ Welch 1992
  29. ^ Smith 2002, p. 154 Smith states: "Who could this be but Moses, the ancient legislator in Israel?"
  30. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 234
  31. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 343-344
  32. ^ Peterson 1997
  33. ^ A Mormon General Authority's Doubts About the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon Mormons in Transistion, sponsored by the Institute for Religious Research. The web site states in its page related to the Signature Books publication of Studies of the Book of Mormon 2nd Edition: "Incredible as it may seem to many Latter-day Saints, Brigham H. Roberts (1857-1933), an LDS General Authority widely considered Mormonism's greatest apologist and historian, expressed the grave doubt that the Book of Mormon is a translation of ancient scripture."
  34. ^ Peterson 1997
  35. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 25
  36. ^ Roberts 1909, p. 89-90
  37. ^ Roberts 1985, p. xvii-xviii
  38. ^ Roper 1997 Roper states: “While Roberts’s studies have been available in published form since 1985, the Tanners failed to mention Roberts’s statement in their 1987 revision of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? In their 1989 work Major Problems of Mormonism they are also strangely silent concerning the statement. Even their most recent discussion of B. H. Roberts’s studies says nothing about the cover letter which Roberts always intended should accompany the manuscript.”

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/u/Studies_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_9255.html"