In 1830 a young man in western New York published a book that recounts a "history" of an ancient people that Americans had never heard of before. Millions of persons since that time have accepted his story as history. Many others have rejected his claim and regard the book as fiction. While faith (or lack of it) is the major factor in determining how persons respond, the historian will be interested in whether those claims are plausible or not on historical grounds.

The book under review here contains three studies that Brigham H. Roberts (1857-1933) produced during the 1920s, wherein he discusses intellectual problems with the Mormon assertion that the Book of Mormon is history. "Book of Mormon Difficulties: A Study" consumes 83 pages and was written in 1921 in response to a request from Apostle James E. Talmage that Roberts prepare answers to questions propounded by a Mr. Couch of Washington, D.C. Discussions during the winter of 1922 with church leaders who read Roberts's research failed to produce serious examination of the issues. Frustrated, Roberts continued his research. His second work is "A Book of Mormon Study" (66 pages) in which he discusses the possibility that Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews might have served as the "ground plan" for the Book of Mormon. Roberts also prepared in parallel columns a summary of the similarities between the two books. "A Parallel" takes up 22 pages of the book.

Editor Brigham D. Madsen added helpful footnotes to these three studies. He also included a biographical essay by Sterling M. McMurrin and eleven letters — written by Roberts, William E. Riter, George W. Middleton, and Ralph W. Chamberlain — that help the reader understand the setting in which Roberts did his research.

Faced with Roberts's collection of evidence that undermined the traditional Mormon claims about the Book of Mormon, church leaders could have decided to begin revising the church's position on the Book of Mormon or they could have left it to individual members to decide for themselves on what level the Book of Mormon is "true." There are, after all, alternatives other than the polar positions (either the book is precisely what Joseph Smith claimed it to be or it is a hoax). It might be a history of ancient America that was also influenced by Joseph's religious and cultural heritage as he translated it. Or it might contain doctrinal "truth" set in the framework of a story about ancient Americans. It is not surprising, though, that the General Authorities responded to Roberts's research by ignoring the issues he raised and reaffirming their testimonies of the Book of Mormon. Quite likely the General Authorities of today would respond in the same way. Indeed, affirming the Book of Mormon as history seems to be given an important emphasis by them, perhaps because of an awareness that some Mormons no longer accept it as history.

. . .

This book will be read because Roberts was an important figure in Mormon history and in Utah history. He was a major political figure in Utah. McMurrin rightly calls him the best historian and theologian that Mormonism produced in its first century (p. xxvi). Whether this great defender of the Book of Mormon had come to seriously doubt the book's historical claims in his later life is an important question in assessing both his thought and Mormon historical claims.

Roberts's studies have an important place in the history of the debate over the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. Generally that debate has been between Mormons and non-Mormons. Therefore it is fascinating that a high church official and leading intellectual was raising serious questions in the 1920s—and not finding satisfactory answers. "Whether or not Roberts retained his belief in the Book of Mormon may never be determined," concludes Madsen (p. 30).

Given Roberts's high position within the Mormon church and given the fact that the General Authorities control the determination of religious truth for Mormons, it is hardly surprising that Roberts's discussion of these problems with the Book of Mormon was a private discussion with church leaders, rather than a public debate.

For those familiar with the debate, the issues Roberts discussed will be reasonably familiar. Orthodox Mormons have said that new research since Roberts's time has answered the problems that troubled him. But new research has also raised new problems not recognized by Roberts. Eventually orthodox "solutions" will be offered for all Book of Mormon "problems," but how plausible are the solutions?

. . .

We are indebted to Brigham H. Roberts for his intellectual honesty and to the University of Illinois Press for making his research available to us.