THE THREE MANUSCRIPTS by B. H. Roberts which form the core of this book first came to my attention in 1980 while I was at work on Mormonism in Transition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986). At that time, George D. Smith, a San Francisco businessman, was kind enough to supply me with copies of the manuscripts. Then, he indicated that he and Everett L. Cooley, director of the Marriott Library's Special Collections who had accessioned the B. H. Roberts papers, were interested in having the manuscripts edited and published.

. . .

Roberts divided "Difficulties" into three parts: (1) linguistics, (2) physical culture, and (3) racial origins. In each section, he reviewed the work of authorities known to him, argued the case, concluded that the evidence from non-Mormon sources was against the Book of Mormon account, then raised a number of questions about the course of action to take (pp. 91-94, 114—15, 142-43).

Roberts presented "Difficulties" to the Church leadership in January 1922. Though no one in the First Presidency or Twelve could answer the questions he raised, a number reaffirmed their testimonies of the Book of Mormon; and Elder Richard R. Lyman suggested that they drop the matter. Instead, President Heber J. Grant appointed a committee consisting of President Anthony W. Ivins and Elders James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and Roberts to investigate questions relating to the Book of Mormon.

With that mandate, Roberts took two courses of action. He met with the members of the committee on several occasions during the late winter and spring of 1922, and he undertook research on both the source of the Book of Mormon text and its context. The result, "A Book of Mormon Study," was a report discussing problems Roberts saw on the basis of currently available research into American antiquities.

The "Study" addressed essentially three questions. First, Roberts asked, was literature available in early nineteenth-century America which might have served as a "ground plan" which Joseph Smith could have used for the Book of Mormon? Second, he queried, did the Prophet have a sufficiently creative imagination to have accomplished such a work? Third, were cultural traits revealed in the Book of Mormon also present in early nineteenth-century America?

His analysis and synthesis suggested affirmative answers to all three questions. There was, Roberts summarized, sufficient "'common knowledge' of accepted American antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, . . . [to have made] it possible for him [Joseph Smith] to create a book such as the Book of Mormon." Furthermore, "there can be no doubt as to the possession of vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith the Prophet" (p. 250). It is possible that the section on nineteenth-century religious culture was not completed since, unlike the other sections, there is no concluding statement (p. 316).

The final manuscript reproduced in the book — entitled "A Parallel" — accompanied a letter sent to Richard R. Lyman in October 1927 after Roberts had returned from his mission in New York. It consists of the juxtaposition of statements and quotations drawn from the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews showing similar information in both books.

The publication of this book evoked a decided controversy in some circles within the LDS scholarly community. John W. Welch, professor of law at Brigham Young University, reviewed the book negatively for the Church News (15 Dec. 1985); he published "B. H. Roberts: Seeker after Truth," in the March 1986 Ensign; and he and Truman G. Madsen, Richard L. Evans Professor of Christian Understanding at Brigham Young University, published preliminary reports under the general title: "Did B. H. Roberts Lose Faith in the Book of Mormon?" (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research & Mormon Studies [FARMS], 1985); and Welch wrote: "Finding Answers to B. H. Roberts Questions and 'An Unparallel'" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1985). "Finding Answers to B. H. Roberts Questions and 'An Unparallel'" is a fairly straightforward attempt to deal with Roberts's questions by citing recent scholarship which supports the traditional LDS position and by reanalyzing the parallels between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews. Welch concluded that both a different reading of the Ethan Smith book and recent evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient text would have let Roberts answer many of his questions differently. He pointed out particularly that most of View of the Hebrews is quite unlike the Book of Mormon.

Much of the controversy surrounding the book has been quite unfortunate. The tone of the first part of "Did B. H. Roberts Lose Faith in the Book of Mormon?", though decidedly negative, nevertheless raised some valid questions about the editorial method, the assumed chronology of Roberts's work, and the inclusion or exclusion of data and editorial comments. Less happily, parts 2 and 3 degenerated into an attack on McMurrin and Brigham Madsen.

The B. H. Roberts Society tried to get the four principals to discuss their differences. When that failed, Brigham Madsen and McMurrin counterattacked at the Algie Ballif Forum in Provo in March 1986 (Brigham D. Madsen and Sterling M. McMurrin, "Reply to John W. Welch and Truman G. Madsen," typescript, March 1986). In it, they vigorously took on the objections that the two BYU professors had raised. Following the Ballif Forum presentation, Welch wrote evenhanded letters to Madsen and McMurrin to clarify his views and reduce the level of tension while spelling out his differences with them.

While Roberts's manuscripts are extremely interesting since they provide insights into his thought and assessment of the status of scholarship on the Book of Mormon during the early 1920s, from a historian's point of view they present some methodological problems. Since "Difficulties" is a survey of the literature on the questions asked, its conclusions for Roberts's time could simply be no better than the available scholarship. Roberts seems to have recognized this, but the Church leadership had no way to address the scholarly conclusions at the time. The Ivins committee might have helped, but Roberts was apparently dissatisfied with their initial efforts.

. . .

Roberts's private statements raise some questions about his views. Brigham Madsen cited a long quotation from the diary of Wesley P. Lloyd, former dean of the Graduate School at BYU, reporting a conversation with Roberts late in his life which indicates that Roberts may have entertained the possibility of a psychological interpretation of the Book of Mormon. Welch cited discrepancies in Lloyd's diary entry and conflicting statements Roberts is reported to have made to others. However, historians have long come to expect inconsistencies and mistakes in details, even from those written close to events. Such discrepancies do not invalidate general impressions conveyed by such a diary. Nevertheless, the diary may warrant some additional study, since research by Welch has shown that the extant version of the diary was apparently in Lloyd's wife's hand rather than in his. Thus, it is not clear when the entry was made.

On balance, the question of whether Roberts expressed views in private conversation with friends that the Book of Mormon might be theologically true yet not historically true may never be conclusively answered. All four disputants conclude that until his death he actively witnessed for the authenticity of Joseph Smith's mission and for the Book of Mormon. His views did not impair his functioning as a General Authority nor his witnessing for the gospel.

. . .

On the whole, the publication of this book is a valuable addition to the literature of Mormonism in the 1920s. Brigham D. Madsen is to be congratulated for the time and effort he put into the volume. The University of Illinois Press should be praised for its willingness to publish the volume. Everett Cooley and George Smith deserve credit for their support. In addition, Jack Welch should also receive credit for clarifying important points on the text of the manuscript and for raising questionson Roberts's state of mind. Scholars in the field of Mormon studies will benefit immeasurably from having this volume, the assessments of the editor, and the letters connected with manuscripts in a readily available form.