I first seriously encountered the writings of Elder B. H. Roberts of the First Council of the Seventy (1857-1933) when I was a college student. I was impressed by the stimulating analysis of Latter-day Saint religious concepts in his Seventy's Course in Theology (1907–1919), I was caught up by the personally passionate historical prose in his Missouri Persecutions (1900), The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo (1900), and the Comprehensive History of the Church (1930). There was firepower and electrifying conviction in his words. He called his faith "unshakeable."

Recently, that faith has been drawn into question in the minds of some people because of a set of papers about the Book of Mormon that B. H. Roberts wrote in 1922. In these papers, Roberts bluntly lists many Book of Mormon "problems'" and raises many arguments that he contemplated could be made against the Book of Mormon. As I read these papers, it became apparent that many people would misunderstand. For those who may be interested, here are the questions I think some people may ask about Elder Roberts's Book of Mormon studies, and here are answers that recent research now provides.

. . .

Q. How long have B. H. Roberts's papers on Book of Mormon "difficulties" been around?

A. The papers, most of which were never given by Elder Roberts to anyone, have been in the hands of his family. They were donated to the University of Utah in 1979 and 1981, since which time copies have been made available.

Q. How have critics of the Church responded to these papers?

A. For critics of the Book of Mormon, Elder Roberts's notes have appeared to be a bonanza. Here is one of the most intellectual General Authorities of his day seeming to expose all the evidentiary weaknesses of his own case. It is like a military officer writing an intelligence report telling the enemy where his own troops are most vulnerable. In the study, Brother Roberts was blunt. He stated a case against the Book of Mormon in tough terms. It is clear that Elder Roberts recognized there may be no answers to some of his hard questions, but that did not deter him from asking the questions.

. . .

Q. What is Elder Roberts's Study of the Book of Mormon?

A. The "Study" is twenty typewritten chapters (each about fifteen pages long). The first fourteen chapters discuss similarities between the Book of Mormon and a book by Ethan Smith published in Vermont in 1823 (second edition in 1825) entitled View of the Hebrews; or, The Tribes of Israel in America. The last six chapters of the "Study" consider the proposition that the Book of Mormon is of human rather than divine origin.

The "Study" is sometimes confused with a shorter, 145-page paper entitled "Book of Mormon Difficulties," which is what B. H. Roberts first wrote by way of committee assignment from Elder James E. Talmage in 1921. In that paper, B. H. Roberts pointed out the difficulties he ran into as he was responding to five questions asked about the Book of Mormon by a Mr. Couch from Washington, D. C. Brother Roberts found in his research that the prevailing scientific theories about Indian origins and pre-Columbian fauna, flora, and technology differed from what he believed about such things.

Q. Do we know exactly when B. H. Roberts wrote the second work, "Study of the Book of Mormon"?

A. Yes. The first page of the original typescript says that the "Study" was written thirteen years "to be exact" after the publication of New Witnesses for God (which appeared in 1909). Because of this and several other telltale changes Roberts made on the typescript, we can date the typing of the "Study" to before he left to serve as mission president in New York on 29 May 1922. Most of his proofreading changes were made before that time as well. This means—contrary to assertions some people have made—that Elder Roberts did not write the "Study" during his mission presidency.

Q. Did Brother Roberts consider the "Study" a finished piece?

A. No. He never submitted it to Church authorities? and, uncharacteristically, proofread it only lightly.

Q. What did B. H. Roberts think of the "Study"?

A. In 1932 he called it an "awful" book. He said that he had not written it for publication.

. . .

Q. Did the "Study" change Elder Roberts's use of the Book of Mormon?

A. No. Before and after the "Study" he used the Book of Mormon as the focus of his missionary programs. He voluntarily chose to speak on Book of Mormon subjects again and again in conferences and in the media. More than fifty-six major talks or statements were made by B. H. Roberts after the "Study" in which he affirmed his faith in the Book of Mormon." After the "Study," Elder Roberts may have taken less interest in archaeology and placed more emphasis on the doctrinal and philosophical strengths of the Book of Mormon, but in no way did he ever doubt or reject the historicity of this "ancient American volume of scripture," as he called it on many occasions.

. . .

Q. Is it possible that B. H. Roberts had a faithful facade that he wore in public but in private was a skeptical doubter?

A. If Elder Roberts was anything, he was outspoken and honest. It is extremely difficult to believe that he was two-faced. In his April 1928 general conference talk, Elder Roberts emotionally spoke of the Book of Mormon and of the appearance of the resurrected Jesus Christ among the Nephites gathered at the temple in Bountiful. He said: "And now, O Lord Jesus, if thou couldst but come into the consciousness of our souls this day, as thou didst come into the vision of the ancient Nephites in the Land of Bountiful, we would join their great song of praise and worship, saying—Hosanna! Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And we, like them, would fall down at the feet of Jesus and worship him this Easter day! Amen." In powerful statements like this one, Elder Roberts revealed his deep-felt faith in the Book of Mormon.

. . .

5. B. H. Roberts displayed a list of twenty-six purported "parallels" between the Book of Mormon and a book written in 1823 (second edition 1825). That book, View of the Hebrews, argues that the American Indians were descendants of the lost ten tribes of Israel (a theory which Elder Roberts rightly wrote in 1932 is not the theory of the Book of Mormon). Since the alleged points of contact between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon are scattered throughout View of the Hebrews and in some cases are supposedly quite specific, the hypothesis that Joseph Smith directly relied on View of the Hebrews becomes plausible only if one assumes that Joseph Smith knew View of the Hebrews quite well and accepted it as correct. If this were so, then he should have followed it–or at least not contradicted it-on its major points. But this does not turn out to be the case. Consider the following "unparallels":

. . .