The allegation that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon by borrowing ideas from Ethan Smith’s works has circulated for many years. But it was not until the close of World War II that the question first received wide publicity and scholarly acceptance. This came with the printing of Fawn Brodie’s life of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History. Before we turn to Brodie’s controversial book, however, it may be helpful to establish Ethan Smith’s identity and pinpoint his geographic location. For many years he was the pastor of a church in Poultney, Rutland County, Vermont. This county adjoins Windsor County, where Joseph Smith’s family resided at the time of Joseph’s birth Ethan share the same last name, actual family ties have never been demonstrated. Ethan’s life span included that of Joseph Smith: Ethan was born in 1762, and he died in 1849, five years after Joseph’s martyrdom. In 1823 Ethan published the first edition of View of the Hebrews; or the Tribes of Israel in America. The work proved immediately popular, as it treated a topic of great interest in early nineteenth-century New England. That topic was the Israelite origin of the American Indians.

. . .

Of the eighteen parallels on Roberts’ list many of the most noteworthy have already been mentioned, such as the proximity and sequence of publication of Ethan’s and Joseph’s books, the shared belief in the Israelite origin of the American Indians, the references to hidden or lost books and to the Urim and Thummim, the accounting for two classes of people in ancient America and the fate of the more civilized, the prominence of Jerusalem at the beginning of each work, the Isaiah quotations, and the desire to convert the early America, and the story of a Messiah in the Western Hemisphere.

. . .

The true reason for Roberts’ not publishing his findings is that they were intended for a restricted audience. In a cover letter to the parallels, dated October 24, 1927, and addressed to Elder Richard R. Lyman, then of the Quorum of the Twelve, Roberts expresses his desire to share the parallels with the Twelve Apostles so as to prepare the brethren against future problems that might arise. He notes that if someone raises the questions of Joseph Smith’s dependence on Ethan Smith’s work, "it would be greatly to the advantage of our future Defenders of the Faith, if they had in hand a thorough digest of the subject matter.’’ Roberts, continuing his remarks to Elder Lyman, states that "if you are sufficiently interested you may submit it to others of your Council." He concludes by reporting that "the Parallel... is not one fourth part of what can be presented in this form, and the unpresented part is quite as striking as this that I submit." Finally, we have an important point clarified: Roberts drew up the parallels in 1927 for the same reason he had compiled six years earlier a volume, never published, on "Book of Mormon Difficulties." . . . Roberts’ concern was ever that of defending, not destroying, the faith, as Truman Madsen’s recent BYU Studies article and book also testify.

. . .

Thus we may conclude our overview of the Ethan Smith controversy. But what are we to make of the varied claims for and against View of the Hebrews as the source of Joseph Smith’s inspiration? First, we must openly concede that source materials did exist prior to 1830 which could have provided Joseph Smith or one of his scribes with ideas for a religious history of the American Indians. In addition we must be suspicious of any Mormon claims that would lead us to believe that Joseph produced an isolated and unprecedented account of the origin and early civilization of the Indians. Another point is that while most of the material in View of the Hebrews is not original even to Ethan Smith, the book does constitute a synthesis, readily available to Joseph Smith and his contemporaries, of early nineteenth-century conjecture about American Indian culture. At the same time Mormons and anti-Mormons alike must acknowledge that no proof exists at present to show that Joseph Smith had a direct knowledge of Ethan Smith’s work. Furthermore, while obvious parallels between the two works exist, none is so close as to justify the idea that Joseph Smith was little more than a plagiarist. In other words it is conceivable that Joseph could have read and made use of View of the Hebrews, but it is also possible that he could have found and translated the golden plates. The most important point of all is that neither position can be "proven" to everyone’s satisfaction. For believers in the Book of Mormon, the best test will always be a spiritual confirmation that the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired ancient record. No person should base his or her testimony on so-called "Mormon evidence books" but rather on a prayerful examination of the Book of Mormon itself. Likewise, every reflective LDS person will also seek to apprise him- or herself of the major issues surrounding the Book of Mormon and to avoid erroneous assertions regarding the book’s uniqueness. Mormonism’s cause is not advanced by the repetition and proliferation of unfounded claims regarding the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, the comparative method, as employed by Roberts, is to be encouraged because it forces us to ask questions and helps us understand the historical context preceding the Book of Mormon’s publication.