I. THE INTEREST IN THE ORIGIN OF THE INDIANS BEFORE 1830

In the first half of the nineteenth century there was great interest in the origin of the American Indians. Indians mounds and relics were abundant in the recently settled lands of the young American nation, and these remains suggested a more highly civilized culture than was evidenced by the Indians with whom the settlers came in contact. The remains of a dead or dying culture aroused much curiosity in people who frequently unearthed those remains.

Speculation, specious scholarship, and superficial similarities gave birth to the idea that the American Indians were the descendents of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, which had been carried into captivity by the Assyrians in the eighth century before Christ. Such outstanding American religious leaders as Roger Williams, William Penn, Cotton Mather, and Jonathan Edwards had advocated this theory a century or more before the Book of Mormon was published in 1830.

By 1830 a considerable number of books had been published in English which described Indian ruins and cultures of North, Central, and South America.

. . .

II. ETHAN SMITH'S VIEW OF THE HEBREWS

One of the most interesting of these books to students of the Book of Mormon is Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews. This book was first published in 1823 in Poultney, Vermont, where the author was a Congregational minister. It enjoyed a "speedy sale," and a second edition, much enlarged, was published in 1825. The first edition was sold as far west as Erie County, in western New York, so the book was certainly available in that part of New York where Joseph Smith lived.

As noted above, View of the Hebrews was one of several popular works of the time which advocated the theory of the Hebraic origin of the Indians. The author collected much data in his efforts to prove that the American Indians were decended from the Ten Lost Tribes, citing 48 authorities, including Roger Williams, William Penn, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards, Adair, Clavigero, Humboldt, and Boudinot. (6) His arguments are based largely on the similarity between the religion, language, and social customs of the Hebrew and Indian cultures, and the ruins left by Indian civilizations. He also used Biblical prophecy to bolster his thesis.

III. JOSEPH SMITH'S FAMILIARITY WITH THIS SUBJECT

It is also significant that Oliver Cowdery, Joseph's scribe when the Book of Mormon was being written, had lived in Poultney, Vermont, from the age of three until the year 1825. This is the same small town where Ethan Smith lived and published his View of the Hebrews. It would have been virtually impossible for Oliver not to have known of the publication of View of the Hebrews in his own home town. In 1825 he left Poultney and went to western New York, where he soon came in contact with the Smith family, and could easily have carried a copy of the second edition of View of the Hebrews with him. At any rate, it can hardly be doubted that Oliver, if not Joseph, had read View ofthe Hebrews prior to his acting as Joseph's scribe in the writing of the Book of Mormon. Considering the subject matter of the two books, who can doubt that the two men discussed the material contained in View of the Hebrews? This is a virtual certainty, regardless of the view one takes concerning Joseph's story of the visitation of the angel Moroni and his acquisition of the golden plates.

IV. SIMILARITY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON TO VIEW OF THE. HEBREWS

Some of the similarities between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews are so notable and striking that B. H. Roberts, Mormon apostle and historian, was deeply enough impressed with them that he made a study of them. He tabulated his findings as parallels between the two books.

After B. H. Roberts' death, his son, Benjamin E. Roberts, addressed the Timpanogos Club at the Hotel Utah on October 10, 1946, discussing his father's study of the similarities between the two books. Mervin B. Hogan was present at the meeting; he examined B. H. Roberts' extensively marked copy of the second edition of View of the Hebrews and his original pencilled long-hand manuscript. Benjamin Roberts distributed mimeographed copies of his father's parallels to those present, and in January, 1956, Hogan published a "faithful copy of the mimeographed material" in The Rocky Mountain Mason, pp. 17-31. With the permission of Mervin Hogan, and George S. Sloan, editor and publisher, B. H. Roberts' parallel is reproduced here from the columns of The Rocky Mountain Mason. All comments in the material below are those of Mormon Apostle B. H. Roberts.

[Reproduction of B. H. Roberts' "Parallel" with table of comparisons between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon]

. . .

B. H. Roberts was obviously impressed by the many parallels found in View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. What his thinking was at the time of his death we do not know, but we do know that he went to great pains to tabulate the above parallels, comment on them, and ask some pointed questions about them.

While a few insignificant parallels between two books may prove nothing, a large number of parallels, many of them very striking in nature, are evidence which must honestly be considered. Mormons are fond of pointing out alleged parallels between the Book of Mormon and archeological findings. B. H. Roberts, Mormon apostle, simply used this same technique with the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews.

If Joseph Smith used View of the Hebrews or any other source material to write the Book of Mormon, he certainly did not tell the world about it, and it is more than likely that he destroyed any tell-tale evidence when the Book of Mormon was first published in 1830. For this reason, it cannot be proved beyond possibility of cavil that Joseph Smith used View of the Hebrews or other sources in writing the Book of Mormon. Nevertheless, there is evidence that View of the Hebrews was a source of information used by Joseph. This evidence must be honestly examined.

The possibility of Joseph's having used View of the Hebrews in no way precludes his use of other possible sources in writing the Book of Mormon. He may very well have used a number of sources.

. . .

Mormons attempt to minimize the evidence given herein by emphasizing all out of proportion the fact that while View of the Hebrews proposes that the Indians are descendents of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, the Book of Mormon only alleges that they are descended from a few individuals of Hebrew blood. The main point of similarity is, of course, their Hebraic origin. It would have been easier, and more prudent, for Joseph to explain how one family (rather than ten whole tribes) arrived in America, and their subsequent history. Prudence would further dictate that a wider representation of the tribes (hence the Mulekites), and an earlier arrival than Lehi's family (hence the Jaredites) would be advisable. These would account for any future evidence which would make the family of Lehi inadequate to cover the facts.

. . .

RESUME OF THE PARALLELS

The following list of parallels contain many more than those noted by B. H. Roberts. Those which were pointed out by Roberts are indicated by an asterisk (*) preceding the number.

Concerning references from the Book of Mormon, the (U) indicates location in current editions of the Utah church's edition of the Book of Mormon; (R) indicates location in the Reorganized Church's edition; and the page numbers refer to the original (1830) edition of the Book of Mormon.

[List of 41 parallels]