The University of Illinois Press published in the fall of 1985 three papers written by B. H. Roberts in 1921-22, collectively titled Studies of the Book of Mormon. The volume also offers introductory and bibliographical essays and reprints some related correspondence. In his three papers, B. H. Roberts explores and puzzles over certain "problems" regarding the Book of Mormon. This publication has generated new interest in old questions. The present memorandum addresses the following issues raised in these Roberts papers:

1) Indian Origins. Roberts found that most writers in his day believed something different about the origins of the American Indians than he did. He collected many of those opinions and asked a number of questions about American antiquities and their relationships to the Book of Mormon. He could not always reconcile those opinions and his beliefs about the Book of Mormon, yet he apparently continued to approve of his old ideas about Indian origins (as he did in editing and using in his mission field a slide show about American archaeology by Gustive 0. Larson, Box 15, folder 3, James H. Moyle Collection, Church Historians Office). In the meantime, he "most humbly, but also most anxiously" awaited the "further development of knowledge that will make it possible for us to give a reasonable answer to those who question us concerning [these] matters." (p. 143). Has that "further development" occurred in the last 60 some years? As the following essay shows, there are now logical and plausible explanations for virtually all of Roberts' questions.

2) Archaeology. Roberts was asked to respond to questions asked of the Church about pre-Columbian archaeology. He did not have many answers at his immediate disposal. Today, however, a thousand times as much data is at hand answering many of these questions and providing valuable evidence about the rest.

3) Absurdities. Roberts found things in the Book of Mormon that seemed absurd or erroneous. On closer examination, few of these things are problematic any longer, and indeed many of these oddities end up strengthening the case for the Book of Mormon.

4) A Parallel? Roberts displays several general similarities and a few specific parallels between the Book of Mormon and the second edition (1825) of Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews (VH). He also points out certain similarities.between conversion accounts of the early nineteenth century and passages in the Book of Mormon. These parallels, however, are. neither as precise nor as significant as some have made them out to be. In fact, it will be shown that the Book of Mormon differs from VH far more than it resembles it, making it hard to believe that Joseph Smith relied on VH.

. . .

A. "An Unparallel"

The proposition before us regarding VH is this: Should we conclude that Joseph Smith specifically took the main structural aspects of the Book of Mormon story from VH? To find that he did, one must find that he knew VH well and respected it deeply. If so, he should have followed it—or at least not contradicted it—on its major points. But contradict it he does, over and over again. Since Roberts has pointed out some "parallels," consider, in this light, the following "unparallels."

(1) VH begins with a chapter (pp. 2-46) on the Destruction of Jerusalem. It has nothing to say, however, about the destruction in 586/7 B.C. by the Babylonians, but details at length the utter annihilation of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Jerusalem described by VH is that of the time of Christ, with a palace, towers on its three walls, a fort, etc. (p. 16). Had Joseph Smith followed this description, he might have unwittingly attributed these details to Jerusalem in Lehi's day. Moreover, David Whitmer remembers Joseph saying that he had not known that Jerusalem had walls until after he translated 1 Nephi, which refers to them. M. J. Hubble interview with David Whitmer, 13 Nov. 1886, in Stanley B. Kimball, "Missouri Mormon Manuscripts," BYU Studies 14 (1974), 486.

(2) Specific heavenly signs marked the destruction of Jerusalem: a meteor hung over the city in the sky for a year (p. 24); a heifer gave birth to a lamb (p. 25); chariots and armed men appeared in the air over Jerusalem (p. 25); a man walked the streets freely proclaiming woes for seven years (p. 26); famines, horrors, mass suicides, and prisoners starving to death are described (p. 34). Why does Joseph Smith overlook such singular and memorable details?

(3) Chapter 2 (pp. 47-66) describes "The Certain Restoration of Judah and Israel." One should note, at the outset, that the word "Restoration" means something entirely different to Joseph Smith than it does in VH, namely the Restoration of all things in a culminating dispensation.

(4) VH lists many prophecies about the Restoration of Israel, including Deut. 30; Isa. 11, 18, 60, 65; Jer. 16, 23, 30-31, 35-37; Zeph. 3; Amos 9; Hos. and Joel. Ezekiel's valley of dry bones is related to the restoration of the Ten Tribes too. These passages are discussed in detail and with enthusiasm as important, undeniable proof that a restoration of the lost tribes will occur. This is an essential premise in the logic of VH, yet with the sole exception of Isa. 11, none of these scriptures appear in the Book of Mormon. Ezek. 37:16-20 may be related to 2 Ne. 3:12, but the later only says that the writings of the loins of Judah and the loins of Joseph shall "grow together unto the confounding of false doctrines." Since the word "stick" only appears once in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 16:23), G. Smith overstates this matter when he claims that "both VH and the Book of Mormon identify the American Indians as the 'stick of Joseph or Ephraim,'" Sunstone 6 (May/June 1981), p. 46.

(5) VH describes- in precise- detail the boundaries of the Holy Land (from Egypt to Mesopotamia) which must some day be given back to the tribes of Israel forever in order for God's prophecies to be fulfilled (pp. 49-50). The Book of Mormon is vague about what lands of inheritance will be occupied by the gathered Israelites.

(6) Chapter 3 (pp. 67-225) comprises most of the book. It produces evidence that the American Indians are the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. Numerous details are given which in Ethan Smith's opinion are "distinguished Hebraisms" and traits given to Israel of old "designed to distinguish them from all other nations" (p. 154). Most of these "distinguished" points that seemed so obvious to Ethan Smith are not to be found in the Book of Mormon, as one would expect to find them if Joseph Smith were using VH or trying to make his book persuasive. For example:

(7) VH expects two groups, the Jews and the American Indians, to be restored (p. 71). The Book of Mormon expects three groups—the Jews and the Nephites and the Ten Tribes—to be restored (2 Ne. 29:13). Wherever the Ten Tribes are, they are not the same as the American Indians for the Book of Mormon (3 Ne. 17:4). This is a fundamental repudiation of the sole thesis of VH.

(8) VH dwells on Hos. 4:16, which states that the Lord will feed the tribes "as a lamb in a large place." For VH, this is important proof that they are in a vast territory (p. 72). There is no Book of Mormon use of this prophecy.

(9) VH asserts repeatedly that the Ten Tribes came to America via "Beering's (sic) Strait," which they crossed on "dry land" (pp. 76-78; see also 114, 153, 159, 168, passim). According to VH, this opinion is unquestionable, supported by Jarvis, Sewall, Israel, Adair, and Boudinot (of the American Bible Society). "They certainly found their way hither and no doubt over Beering's straits from the north to the east of Asia-" (p. 168). Yet the Book of Mormon squarely and blatantly conflicts with this "learned" and in those days authoritatively accepted account.

(10) According to VH, the Indians spread over the land from North to East and from North to South. This is evidenced by several Indian accounts and is referred to repeatedly in VH (see pp. 81-83, 146, 182). This is a critical point, since Amos 8:11-12 prophesies that they will go from the north to the east, while sizeable population migrations in the Book of Mormon always move from the South to the North.

(11) The Indians are Israelites because they use the word ’’Hallelujah" (p. 87 and several other times). Here is one of VH*s favorite proofs, a dead give-away, that the Indians are Israelites. Yet the word is never used in the Book of Mormon.

(12) The Indians are Israelites because they sacrifice and fast in preparation for war and purify themselves for battle. They also asbtain from, all ."matrimonial intercourse three days before going to war ... and for three days after they return" (p. 123). Such abstraction never occurs in the Book of Mormon. Rather, the Book of Mormon people fast after their battles as a part of mourning for their dead—an accurate pre-Exilic feature. See Stephen Ricks, "Fasting in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon," F.A.R.M.S. Preliminary Report RIC-83.

(13) The Indians are Israelites because Indian words resemble Hebrew. A table showing 34 Indian words or parts of sentences with Hebrew equivalents appears on pp. 90-91. No reader of the book could have missed this chart. VH also states that the Indian word for "spirit" is manito (p. 146). If Joseph Smith had wanted to make up names to use in the Book of Mormon that would substantiate his claim that these were authentic Western Hemisphere Hebrew words, he would have jumped at such a ready-made list! Yet none—not one—of these 34 Hebrew/Indian words has even the most remote resemblance to any of the 175 names that appear for the first time in the Book of Mormon. Had Joseph Smith put the slightest credence in VH, the names he would have fabricated for his own book would undoubtedly have resembled these VH words: e.g., Keah, Lani, Uwoh, Phale, Kurbet, etc.

(14) The Indians are Israelites because they know the flood story and call high mountains "ararat" (pp. 91, 115, 170 etc.) Since VH mentions this factor several times, it was significant evidence to Ethan Smith. But the flood story is never told in the Book of Mormon (Noah is mentioned once). In addition, VH claims that the Indians knew of a creation of woman from the ribs of two men (p. 143), yet ribs are never mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

(15) The Indians are Israelites because they have, religious dances before going to war (pp. 92, 165). Beside the fact that the Book of Mormon never mentions dancing (except for the dancing maidens in Mosiah 20:5—which appears to be a celebration of the pre-Exilic festival.of the 15th of Av; see F.A.R.M.S. Update February 1985), it is unclear in Biblical sources, that the Israelites danced in preparation for war.

(16) The Indians are Israelites because they call God "Jah,” and this is "exclusively Hebrew" (p. 92). They chanted "hal, hal, hal; le, le, le; lu, lu, lu; yah, yah, yah" (Studies, p. 237). Why then wouldn't Joseph Smith call God "Jah" at least once in the Book of Mormon? or use the word halleluvah? Jehovah appears only in 2 Ne 22:2 and Moro. 10:34.

(17) VH gives Abbamocko, an Indian name, as an example of a Hebrew name, "Abba" meaning "father" in Hebrew (p. 94). But if Joseph Smith had taken his cues from this shoddy kind of analysis, he would have blundered. The Hebrew "Abba-" does not appear as a prefix in the Israelite onomasticon. When "father" is used as a prefix in a Hebrew name, its form is simply "Ab-", as in Ab-raham. Book of Mormon names reflect this usage correctly, as in the names Abinadi and Abinadom.

(18) The Indians worshipped the sun (p. 95) and "saluted the dawn every morning," (p. 157) showing them to be pious and religious like the Israelites. Such a thing is never condoned in the Book of Mormon, undoubtedly because it was one of the very heresies which Lehi must have been fighting against, as Ezek. 8:15-16 makes clear: "Thou shalt see greater abominations than these . . . they worship the sun toward the east."

(19) The Indians are Israelites because they carry small boxes with them into battle. These are to protect them against injury. They are sure signs that the Indians' ancestors knew of the ark of the covenant! (pp. 95-96, 141, 162). How could Joseph Smith pass up such a distinguished and oft-attested Hebraism as this?! Yet in all the Book of Mormon battle scenes, there is not one hint of any such ark, box or bag serving as a military fetish or ceremonial artifact.

(20) The Indians are Israelites because they circumcise their boys (pp. 97, 170). One Indian could remember being held down while his father performed this rite on him. If Joseph Smith had understood that this Israelite practice persisted down to his day on the Western Hemisphere, why would he have "terminated" the practice in Mor. 8:8 ("the law of circumcision is done away") among the Nephites? He leaves no hint that the wicked Lamanites would carry on such a practice.

(21) The Indians are Israelites because they believe the air to be filled with spirits, good and bad (pp. 99, 156), just as the Hebrews believed in good and bad angels. This is absolutely not the angelology of the Book of Mormon. Rather the Book of Mormon has little angelology; it refers to the "angel of the Lord" but not much else. The good and bad angels with which VH is familiar, however, enter Hebrew theology only after the Exile in Babylonia, after VH's Ten Tribes and the Book of Mormon's. Lehi had both left Palestine. Not only does the Book of Mormon not agree with VH here, but VH itself is off the mark.

(22) The Indians are Israelites because they are "intoxicated with religious pride" and call all other people "accursed," yet consider themselves God's peculiar people (p. 96). Beside being inconsistent with extensive evidence that VH later adduces to prove that the Indians are Israelites because they are hospitable and kind (pp. 174-77), this is hardly the attitude the Book of Mormon attributes to its Lamanite survivors.

(23) The Indians are Israelites because they called God "Providence" (p. 57), the "Great Chief Father" (p. 100), the "Great Man above" (p. 107), "Thunderer" (p. 159), the "Supreme Essence" and the "fountain of mystic medicine" (p. 159). The Book of Mormon never calls God any of these distinctive names, though Lamanite Lamoni comes close.

(24) While VH reports in some places that the Indians are Israelites because they have "the notion of there being but one great and-true. God", (pp. 102), it also reports Indians who believe that god is in the buffalo, the wolf, the bear, a bird or a rattlesnake (p. 102), and Indians who believe in 37 gods (p. 106) . Does any of this have any bearing whatsoever on the theology in the Book of Mormon?

(25) The Indians are Israelites because they believed that the gods controlled man's destinies (p. 106). This looks more like VH is reading a little Calvinism into Indian lore. The Book of Mormon knows nothing of this idea of destinies.

(26) The Indians are Israelites because of "their dress and trinkets, as notable, like those of ancient Israel; their earings, nose jewels, bracelets on their arms and legs, rings," etc. (p. 108). Little mention of jewelry is found in the Book of Mormon (the Zoramites had ringlets, bracelets and ornaments of gold, Alma 31:28), yet VH would have led Joseph Smith to believe that this was an important Israelite characteristic. More important to the Book of Mormon was "costly apparel," which is mentioned frequently.

(27) The Indians are Israelites because the Mohawk tribe was a tribe held in great reverence by all the others, to whom tribute was paid (p. 109). Obviously (!) the Mohawks are the vestiges of the tribe of Levi, Israel's tribe of priests. If Joseph Smith, believed that such a tribe or priestly remnant had survived down to his day, he forgot to provide for anything to that effect in the Book of Mormon.

(28) The Indians are Israelites because their tribes had "animal emblems” (p. Ill). In just the same way, Dan was symbolized by the serpent, Benjamin by the wolf. The Book of Mormon makes no such references, in fact Gen. 49 (where Jacob blesses his sons and mentions these animals) only associates animals with some of the tribes, contrary to VH.

(29) The Indians are Israelites because they had cities of- refuge (p. 112). Blood was never shed in these towns, and Indian captives were allowed to flee to these cities of refuge (p. 167). Indeed, ancient Israelite law provided for cities of refuge (Ex. 21:13; Num. 35; Deut 19), but the Book of Mormon never mentions them. Surely the many killings in the Book of Mormon (i.e., Nehor slaying Gideon) present golden opportunities for a writer following VH to incorporate references about a place of refuge. The answer may be found in the idea that the cities of refuge were unique to the Holy Land of Palestine, which was especially to be kept pure from blood guilt (I am unaware of any cities of refuge outside Palestine in the Diaspora). The Mosaic law established the six cities of refuge precisely in certain Israelite locations. It might have been considered inappropriate to supplant those cities with New World locations. Posts of refuge, of course, are not mentioned in the Book of Mormon either.

(30) The Indians are Israelites because they selected wise young men to carefully retain their traditions (p. 113). Had Joseph Smith been a devotee of VH, such selections would have been depicted in the Book of Mormon, but instead, all the transmitters of the Nephite records from Jacob to Amaleki, Mosiah I to Mosiah II, and Alma the Younger to Ammaron (4 Ne. 49), were fathers and sons. The process was essentially patriarchial and genealogical.

(31) The Indians are Israelites because they had traditions about ancient ancestors who lived "till their feet were worn out" (p. 115). Yet the patriarchs of Genesis are not described this way in the Book of Mormon. Rather, the "age of man" in 3 Ne. 28:2 is typically ancient. See John Welch, "Longevity in the Book of Mormon," Collegium Aesculapium (1984), F.A.R.M.S. Reprint WEL-84.

(32) The Indians are Israelites because they have a tradition about an ancestor with 12 sons (p. 116). This is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon, although it would have been easy to make reference to the 12 tribes or the 12 sons of Jacob.

(33) The Indians are Israelites because they have a tradition about a rod with buds (p. 116), obviously parallel to Aaron's rod. The only similar Book of Mormon reference to a rod is to one made of iron.

(34) Had the writer of the Book of Mormon relied on VH for his ideas about Jewish festivals, he would have thought of Pentecost in the following terms: "Dr. Beatty informs us of their feast, called the hunter's feast; answering, he thinks, to the Pentecost in ancient Israel. He describes it as follows: They choose twelve men, who provide twelve deer. Each of the twelve men cuts a sapling with these they form a tent, covered with blankets. They choose twelve stones for an altar." Yet these practices have nothing to do with the ancient Israelite Pentecost. In contrast, the account of Abinadi in Mosiah 11-17 depicts an ancient Israelite Pentecost with stunning precision in its liturgical language and symbolism. See "Abinadi and Pentecost," F.A.R.M.S. Update September 1985. How did reliance on VH produce this?

(35) VH often refers to an Indian feast "in which no bone of their sacrifice may be broken," alluding to a central characteristic of Passover (p. 117). However, this idea, whether connected with Passover or with Jesus, is absent from the Book of Mormon. Likewise, the idea of drinking bitter liquids (pp. 120, 143) that is associated with Passover in VH is absent from the Book of Mormon. Instead, there is considerable evidence of subtle and intimate Passover practices in two places in the Book of Mormon; the Book of Mormon practices seem to have been unknown to Gentiles in the 1820s. See "The Sons of the Passover,” F.A.R.M.S. Update September 1984.

(36) VH concludes that the Indians are Israelites because they sacrifice their "first fruits" to God (p. 118, 145). Yet outside of one place that mentions "firstlings" (Mos. 2:3), the idea of "first fruits." being sacrificed by the people in a harvest celebration is absent from the Book of Mormon. Only Jesus (2 Ne. 2:9, Jac. 4:11) and the fruits of repentance (Moro. 8:25) are called "first fruits." Moreover, a typical Indian feast, as described on pp. 142-43, has no bearing on any festival observed in the Book of Mormon.

(37) VH claims that the Indians "were never known to offer sacrifice to any god made with hands" (p. 105). But in the Book of Mormon, Mor. 4:14, the Lamanites were guilty of this very sin.

(38) The Indians are Israelites because they had a daily sacrifice of fat in the fire and passed their venison through the flame, cutting it into twelve pieces (p. 119). This great clue of "Israelitishness" is also absent from the Book of Mormon.

(39) The Indians are Israelites because their priests wore buttons, shells, antlers, feathers, bells, moccasins and rattles made of dried turkey spurs (p. 121) or porcupine quills (p. 166), which clothing VH connects with the High Priest's vestments described in the Hebrew Bible. Besides doubting the relevance of such attire either to ancient Israelite priestly robes or to Joseph Smith, one must also note that the Book of Mormon never describes the clothing worn by any Nephite priest. Similarly, the word "breastplate" appears in VH, but that does little in this context to establish a relationship with the Old Testament or the Book of Mormon.

(40) The Indians are Israelites because they considered their land to be one "flowing with milk and honey" (p. 121). In all the Book of Mormon descriptions of the Nephites' Promised Land, however, this singular phrase is never employed.

(41) The Indians are Israelites because their temples had "a holy of holies" (p. 124). The Book of Mormon is silent on this significant detail.

(42) The Indians are Israelites because they had dietary rules. For example, they would "never eat the hollow of the thigh of anything they kill," had manners for the use of knives, and would not break the bones of animals they ate. The Book of Mormon makes, however, no reference whatever to such eating practices, let alone Jewish dietary laws, perhaps because such miles took on primary significance in Jewish theology only after Lehi had left.

(43) The Indians are Israelites because they, like the Hebrews, mourned for the dead (p. 124). Of course, the Book of Mormon peoples (and all peoples) also mourn their dead; but VH tells how the Indians hired professional mourners. There is none of this in the Book of Mormon.

(44) VH says that the Indians, like the Hebrews, buried furniture with their dead (p. 125), a concept not present in the Book of Mormon.

(45) VH says that the Indians knew "a distinguished Hebraism," namely "laying the hand on the mouth, and the mouth in the dust." No reference to this sure sign of Hebraism is employed in the Book of Mormon.

(46) The Indians are Israelites because they practiced levirate marriage (p. 125). Whether this is true or not, it is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

(47) VH claims that the Indians are Israelites because their women separated themselves during, and purified themselves after, their menstrual periods (p. 126, 143). No such rules are alluded to in the Book of Mormon.

(48) Did the Book of Mormon get the idea that monogamous marriage was a good idea because VH reports an Indian view that "tak[ing] a number of wives at a time and turn[ing] them away at pleasure" was a wicked thing? This seems unlikely. The Book of Mormon leaves the possibility of polygamy open, as was the case in ancient Israel, unlike VH. The Book of Mormon never reports cases where men had turned their wives out at pleasure; it speaks much rather of harlots and concubines.

(49) The Indians are Israelites because they keep an eternal fire burning in their temples (p. 134) and because they burn lamps all night before a new moon (p. 164). No such details appear in the Book of Mormon.

(50) The Indians are Israelites because they worship a God who controls nature and specifically "caused the sun to shine and dispersed the dark cloud" (p. 135). This characteristic of God is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

(51) Like the Hebrews who used incense, the Indians use a sweathouse and burn tobacco as a part of their prayers (p. 136). It would have been easy for Joseph Smith to build, such practices- into, for example, the perverted rites of the Zoramites, but he did not.

(52) The Indians are Israelites because they prayed to God that they might be "carried home in safety to our wives and children" as they departed on their long journeys (p. 138). The prayer of Alma in Alma 31:26-35 is ideally suited to lodge such an expression, but neither it nor anything like it appears.

(53) The Indians are Israelites because, in a manner which is "manifestly Hebrew," they were very suspicious of evil and started all their council meetings by smoking a peace pipe and choosing a speaker to express their views (p. 144). This is not the way such negotiations are conducted in the Book of Mormon. See Mosiah 9:6-7, where such a meeting is reported—one that follows Near Eastern tribal practices.

(54) VH considers it significant that the Indians "count time after the manner of the Hebrews. They divide the year into spring, summer, autumn,-and winter. They number their year from any of those four periods, for they have no name for a year, and they subdivide these, and count the year by lunar months, like the Israelites, who counted by moons." (p. 149). Had Joseph Smith followed this, he would have blundered into error. Instead the Book of Mormon counts the years according to regnal years, and numbers the months in the manner of pre-Exilic Israel. See Jay Huber, "Lehi's 600 Year Prophecy and the Birth of Christ," F.A.R.M.S. Preliminary Report HUB-82. Moreover, VH takes it as a sign of Indian erudition that they intercalated their calendar every 104 years (p. 178). Such a practice is absent from the Book of Mormon.

(55) VH claims that Indians knew the Hebrew tetragrammaton or great four letter name, YHWH (p. 151). The Book of Mormon never draws attention to this name of God.

(56) The Indians are Israelites because they worked to earn their wives, as did Jacob (p. 155). This, however, is not the way Nephi and his brothers take their wives.

(57) The Indians are Israelites because they could easily divorce their wives, as under the Law of Moses (p. 155). The Book of Mormon, however, opposes divorce and encourages marital fidelity.

(58) VH refers to the Indians' practice of interpreting dreams and searching into, futurity while their priests were in the process of curing diseases or healing wounds (p. 155). Specific disease is mentioned only once in the Book of Mormon (fevers in Alma 46:40); medicine is never associated with prophecy or spirituality.

(59) VH associates medicine and cleansing the heart with treaty making (p. 157). .Treaty oaths in the Book of Mormon, however, follow with great precision the Near Eastern practices • of the Eighth Century B.C. See Mark Davis and Brent Israelsen, "International Relations and Treaties in the Book of Mormon," F.A.R.M.S. Preliminary Report D&I-82; Stephen Ricks, "The Treaty/Covenant Pattern in King Benjamin's Address,” BYU Studies 1983, F.A.R.M.S. Reprint RIC-83b.

(60) The Indians are Israelites because they ritually gather three bunches of grass, have sacred paintings, and ten dreamers (pp. 157-58). The paintings are "anointings and purifications;" and anytime VH finds a number three it is associated with the Trinity; anytime it finds the number 10 it is associated with the Ten Tribes. Beside being naive beyond description, these notions are irrelevant to the Book of Mormon, which never expressly numbers anything 10 except Mormon's age.

(61) The Indians are Israelites because they have their young boys fast on a hill, roll in white clay, while humming (p. 161) . This, VH claims, is the legacy of the Israelite "dust and ashes." Had Joseph Smith believed this, why is the Book of Mormon silent on these aspects of "dust," "sackcloth," or "ashes"?

(62) The Indians are Israelites because they had sacred places (rocks, trees, fountains, etc.) where their assemblies were held (p. 165). Although the Book of Mormon speaks of many formal assemblies, they are always at a temple, synagogue or church; the "waters of Mormon" is only an impromptu assembly place.

(63) The Indians are Israelites because they allowed blood vengeance to be obtained only by relatives of the deceased (p. 166) . A close examination of blood vengeance in the Book of Mormon, however, indicates its direct relationship with Old Testament ideas and not any relationship with VH. See James Rasmussen, "Blood Vengeance in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon," F.A.R.M.S. Preliminary Report RAS-81. Indeed, the Indian practice would seem to be inconsistent with the account found in Alma 1 regarding Nehor's killing of Gideon.

(64) The Indians are Israelites because they knew the mechanical arts of brickmaking, pottery, sculptures, implements of iron (p. 172), paintings, stone buildings, and carving in wood and stone (p. 182, 186) . Brickmaking was learned during the Israelites' bondage in Egypt—a period of captivity often mentioned in the Book of Mormon—but brickmaking is never suggested. Nor is pottery, sculpting, painting, carving in wood, etc. Indeed, the Israelites avoided "graven images," although Lamanites and backsliders had "idols."

(65) The destruction of the more technically minded . Israelites was God's way of putting the Israelites in "an outcast state" to fulfill specific prophecy (p. 172). This prophecy is never alluded to in the Book of Mormon.

(66) According to VH, the Indians guickly lost knowledge that they were all from the same family (p. 173) . The Book of Mormon tells that family and tribal affiliations were maintained for almost 1000 years. See, e.g., 3 Ne. 7:2; 4 Ne. 1:36-39.

(67) According to VH, even the best of the Israelites were only "partially civilized" (p. 173) . The Nephites of the Book of Mormon were fully civilized.

(68) The Indians are Israelites because they knew how to build dikes, canals and immense pyramids (p. 179). No dikes, canals or pyramids are specifically mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

(69) When VH says that the Indians' government was theocratic, it means something different from what the Book of Mormon means. For VH, government was begun by an "ancient mysterious founder" (read "Moses") and therefore is theocratic. This government was a "despotism concealed under the appearances of a gentle and patriarchal government" (p. 180). Contrast this facile generality with Benjamin's accurate description of the role of the King., in Israel (Mos. 2) and his profound paraphrase of the Paragraph of the King from Deut. 17. See John Tvedtnes, "A Nephite Feast of Tabernacles," F.A.R.M.S. Preliminary Report TVE-78.

(70) The Indians are Israelites because the Indians and the rabbis called their deputy priests "sagan" (p. 181). The Book of Mormon not only never makes mention of such a name, it makes no reference to deputy priests.

(71) VH claims that Indians had a "constitution" (pp. 181- 82) . No such document is ever mentioned in the Book of Mormon, despite this open invitation. The Nephite "republic" was still a far cry from a modern republic. See John Welch, "Old World Perspectives on the Book of Mormon," Ensign. F.A.R.M.S. Reprint WEL-76.

(72) VH is adamant that the first settlers who moved from the north down into the south (Mexico) migrated there in 648 A.D. "All seem to agree," VH claims (p. 183). In the face of such widespread and absolute assertions, what devotee of this volume would dare to place inhabitants in the land southward hundreds and thousands of years before this time?!

(73) VH reports that early Christian missionaries were convinced that the "gospel had in very remote time, been already preached in America." (p. 187)1 They drew this conclusion, however, only from their "rites of religion," "ritual," and "mythology." (p. 187). Never is the claim made that they knew of Christ.

(74) VH claims that the righteous Indians were active "for a long time," well into recent times, and that their destruction occurred about 1400 A.D., as evidenced by tree rings near some of the mounds and fortifications (p. 188). The Book of Mormon implicitly rejects this notion by reporting the destruction of the Nephites in the fourth century A.D.

(75) VH describes a vast civilization all over the Mississippi valley and Eastern United States, with military works, walls, ditches, forts, cemeteries, temples, altars, camps, over 5,000 towns or villages, race grounds, places of amusement, habitations of chieftains, videttes, watchtowers, monuments and high places all over the place (p. 189). When seen as a whole picture, these many items provide only a very weak parallel for the isolated watchtower, discussed by Roberts, which the Nephites built in the land of Nephi.

(76) The Indians are Israelites because they know how to use circles, squares, octagons, and parallel lines (p. 190). No evidence of geometry is found in the Book of Mormon.

(77) The Indians are Israelites because they had wells, like Jacob's well, with stones at their mouth (p. 190). No wells are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

(78) The Indians are Israelites because in their tombs people have found mirrors, stone axes, breastplates, crucibles, and scabbards (pp. 192-97). Most of these items are never mentioned, and none of them in connection with a burial in the Book of Mormon.

(79) The Indians are Israelites because they knew the legends of Quetzalcoatl (pp. 204-08). But the surprise for the modem reader here is that VH proves beyond doubt that Quetzalcoatl was none other than—not Jesus—but Moses! "Who could this be but Moses. the ancient legislator in Israel?" (p. 206, emphasis in original). He was white, gave laws, required penance (strict obedience), had a serpent with green plumage (brazen serpent in the wildernss), pierced ears (like certain slaves under the Law of Moses), appeased God's wrath (by sacrifices), was associated with a great famine (in Egypt), spoke from a volcano (Sinai), walked barefoot (removed his shoes), spawned a golden age (seven years of plenty in Egypt—which has nothing to do with Moses, by the way), etc. If VH provided the inspiration for the Book of Mormon, it did not provide much. Besides the fact that VH's explanation of Quetzalcoatl as Moses is inconsistent with the Book of Mormon, none of the hallmarkdetails associated with Quetzalcoatl according to VH (walking barefoot, speaking from a mountain, having feathers, etc.) are incorporated into the account of Christ in 3 Nephi.

(80) The Indians are Israelites because a Jewish phylactery was found wrapped in rawhide near Pittsburgh (pp. 217-25). Yet these prayers of the Jews are not mentioned, paraphrased or' otherwise included in the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the Israelites in the Northern Kingdom would have worn phylacteries before the time of their destruction by the Assyrians in 722 B.C., as VH baldly states that they did (p. 224).

(81) The final chapter (pp. 227-52) in VH is entitled "An Address of the Prophet Isaiah Relative to the Restoration of His People.” After repeating most of the restoration prophecies discussed above, VH then offers a detailed exegesis of Isaiah 18 to prove that Isaiah saw the ten tribes on the Western Hemisphere. This chapter becomes the strongest prophecy in the VH arsenal. Although the Book of Mormon also draws heavily upon Isaiah, it is bewildering for any comparison that not so much as a whisper of this chapter is found in the Book of Mormon. For a detailed study of the fact that there is very little overlap between the Isaiah materials in VH and the Book of Mormon, see S. Palmer and W. Knecht, "View of the Hebrews: Substitute for Inspiration?" BYU Studies (1964), F.A.R.M.S. Reprint P&K-64. See also John Tvedtnes, "The Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon," F.A.R.M.S. Preliminary Report TVE-81, for a thorough comparison of the Isaiah texts in the Book of Mormon in light of the textual variants in the Masoretic, Dead Sea and Septuagint texts.

(82) The Indians are Israelites because they, like the Jews, had harps (p. 184). As a matter of fact American Indian ethnology provides no evidence of such instrument in pre-Columbian times. No harp is mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

(83) VH mentions hieroglyphics. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, speaks only of "reformed Egyptian," which appears to have good reference to hieratic or demotic. See "Martin Harris' Visit to Charles Anthon: Collected Documents on Short-hand Egyptian," F.A.R.M.S. Preliminary Report STF-85a.

(84) Unlike the Book of Mormon, VH mentions many distinctive biblical ideas and words, like "Gog" (p. 54), "Euphrates" (p. 89), or "Beelzebub" (p. 99). While the Book of Mormon uses several biblical names, they are different from those appearing in VH and reveal many interesting details about the language and mentality of the Nephites when studied collectively and closely.

. . .

In sum, in the face of all the differences between VH and the Book of Mormon, these few slender similarities pale. If VH provided any inspiration for the Book of Mormon, it did not provide much. Even the position that Joseph Smith “could have used [VH] as a rich source of ideas for some structural and narrative aspects of the Book of Mormon," suggested as tenable by M. Sowell, Sunstone 6 (May/June 1981), p. 52, seems implausible in light of the fact that the Book of Mormon contradicts and ignores VH on so many important occasions.