In the early nineteenth century, theories on the mound builders were less well-grounded than now, as were speculations about the origin of the American Indian—the Lamanites of the Book of Mormon. There was discussion of these matters in the contemporary press, and books were written on the subject. One of these books, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews (Poultney, Vermont, 1825), we shall later discuss in some detail. One of the many prevalent views was that the Indians were descendants of one or more of the lost tribes of Israel. We may be entirely certain that Joseph had a lively interest in these early inhabitants, as indicated by Lucy's account.

. . .

Thrusting aside, then, the question of whether any Spaulding manuscript had a part in the writing of the Book of Mormon, we turn to Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews. Ethan Smith (no relation) was the pastor of a church in Poultney, Vermont. He published View of the Hebrews in 1823. This was a work of dubious scholarship, setting forth the view (then widely held, as we have seen) that American Indians are of Israelite origin. The book sold well, and in 1825 Smith published a second edition, revised and considerably enlarged. The second edition was also successful, and there were two printings of it. It was published five years before the Book of Mormon came off Grandin's press. There are many similarities between the two books, similarities that could be taken to indicate that Joseph used View of the Hebrews (hereafter VH) as source material for the Book of Mormon.

It cannot be proven that this was the case, but many have thought the suggestion very strong. One who studied the problem was Brigham H. Roberts, a respected Mormon scholar and an early official historian of the church. Roberts listed a number of parallels between the Book of Mormon and VH. Some have suggested on the basis of Roberts's work that he, a General Authority of the church, had lost his faith in Joseph Smith and in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. The major parallels addressed by Roberts were these:

1. Geographical propinquity. VH was published in Poultney, Vermont, in Windsor County, which adjoined the county in which Joseph Smith spent his earliest years. The important consideration here, however, is that Oliver Cowdery was living in Poultney when the book was published. Not only that, but his stepmother was a member of Ethan Smith's congregation. In view of the intimate association between Cowdery and Joseph during the translation of the Book of Mormon—and keeping in mind Judge Lang's assertions (p. 57)—it is a virtual certainty that Joseph was familiar with VH. Roberts declares that it would be a little short of miraculous if they(the Smith family) did not know of Ethan Smith's book. It is, in any case, a certainty that Joseph knew of the book after the publication of the Book of Mormon; he specifically mentioned the book on at least one occasion.

2. The basic theme of both books is the same: The American Indians are descended from the Hebrews. Be it remembered that this was a commonly held view at that time in that area, though that view is now altogether discredited. Thus misinformation prevalent in the neighborhood at the time appears in the Book of Mormon, supposedly written by ancient prophets who should have known better, having been, as it were, there.

3. The concept of a long-lost buried book is present in both works. Ethan Smith wrote of a book of Indian origin, kept for a long time but at last buried with a dead Indian chief because the Indians had lost the ability to read it. VH even predicted an event similar to the discovery of the Book of Mormon; Ethan Smith states that some of the readers of his first edition had said that "if the Indians are of the tribes of Israel, some decisive evidence of the fact will ere long be exhibited."

4. Inspired seers and prophets abound in both books.

5. The Urim and Thummim are mentioned in both books. This is, perhaps, of more significance than might at first appear. The Urim and Thummim are little understood, even by theologians, and any reference whatever to them was, in the literature of the time, unusual.

6. Joseph's manuscript was translated from hieroglyphs of "reformed Egyptian." Ethan Smith, citing Humboldt, refers to hieroglyphic paintings early America. Roberts wondered, "Was this sufficient to suggest the strange manner of writing the Book of Mormon?"

7. In both books there are two classes of people in early America: barbarous and civilized.

8. The beginnings of both books are concerned with the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Hebrews.

9. Ethan Smith wrote frequently of both the scattering and the gathering of Israel in the last days. So did Joseph.

10. Ethan Smith quoted Isaiah at length, as did, after him, Joseph. Roberts asks "Why are quotations and references to this great and rich Hebrew literature confided practically to Isaiah alone?"—i.e., Why did the later book follow the earlier one so closely?

11. Both books emphasize the necessity for the Gentile nation in America to become the savior of Israel in America.

12. In both books the Messiah appears in the New World. In Ethan Smith's book we have Quetzalcoatl, frequently referred to as the "Mexican Messiah." In the Book of Mormon Christ himself appears, though briefly, in the New World. Roberts asks: “Did this character spoken of in the View of the Hebrews, published seven years before the Book of Mormon, furnish the suggestion of the Christ on the western continent?"

There are more parallels, but these are enough to suggest that View of the Hebrews was used by Joseph Smith as a source for the Book of Mormon. Roberts stated his conclusions, with respect to the parallels, this way: "Where such striking parallels as these obtain, it is not unreasonable to hold that where one account precedes the other, and if the one constructing the later account has had opportunity of contact with the first account, then it is not impossible that the first account could have suggested the second; and if the points of resemblance and possible suggestion are frequent and striking, then it would have to be conceded that the first might even have supplied the ground plan of the second."