Possible Modern Sources and Influences

Views of the Hebrews. Ethan Smith's 1825 edition of the Views of the Hebrews has been widely suggested as Joseph Smith's source for the Book of Mormon (B. H. Roberts 1985; Persuitte 1985; Brodie 1945, 47-59; G. Smith 1981; Jones 1964). The claims of noteworthy parallels between the two works, aside from proximity of publication, include providing an Israelite origin for the American Indian; a holy book the Indians wrote which they will have again; two groups — one savage, lazy and ignorant and one civilized and expert in mechanical arts — in ancient America, the savage destroying the civilized. Both feature the fall of Jerusalem, quote Isaiah extensively on the restoration of Israel and the rise of a great gentile nation, allegedly quote Ezekiel 37:16-17 to identify the stick of Judah with the Bible and the stick of Joseph as a new record, and allegedly speak of the Urim and Thummim. Views speaks of Quetzalcoatl and the Book of Mormon of the resurrected Christ in ancient America.

On closer examination, however, these seeming parallels are much less compelling. Views teaches that the American Indians descend from a single migration of the ten tribes following the fall of Jerusalem in 721 B.C. to the Assyrians. The Book of Mormon speaks of at least three migrations, one at the time of the tower of Babel and two at the fall of Israel to Babylon in 588 B.C. The Book of Mormon is not a story of the ten tribes and does not claim, like the Indian book in Views, to have been written in Hebrew on parchment, but in reformed Egyptian on gold plates. Views quotes numerous biblical passages on the restoration of Israel which are essential to Ethan Smith's argument, including Deuteronomy 30; Isaiah 11, 18, 60, 65; Jeremiah 16, 23, 30-31, 35-37; Zephiniah 3; Amos 9, Hosea, and Joel, yet none of these appear in the Book of Mormon except Isaiah 11 (Palmer and Knecht 1964). Views sees Quetzalcoatl as a figure of Moses rather than as Jesus, a significant distinction.

Unlike Views, the Book of Mormon does not simply divide the people into civilized and savage groups. The Nephites and Lamanites enjoyed free cultural exchange and trading throughout much of their history (Alma 22; 23:15-17; 47:35-38; 55:4; Hel. 6:7-8; 4 Ne. 20; Moro. 2:8; 6:15). Lamanites became Nephites and Nephite dissenters became Lamanites (Words of Mormon 16; Alma 32:15-17; 43:13; Hel. 4:4). Most important, the Nephites were reportedly more depraved and savage than the Lamanites at some points in their history, and especially at their demise as a nation (Jarom 3; Alma 59:12; Hel. 4:1-12, 22; 6:17-18, 37-38; Morm. 2:13-15; 3:11; 4:5-9; Moro. 9). The supposed parallel between civilized and savage nations in the two works thus oversimplifies the Book of Mormon.

George D. Smith claims that "both the Views of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon identify the American Indians as the 'stick of Joseph or Ephraim'" (1981, 46). This assertion is false. Stick appears only once in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 16:23) referring to an arrow. While Doctrine and Covenants 27:5 quotes Ezekiel 37:16 that the sticks of Judah (the Bible) and of Joseph (the Book of Mormon) will grow together, it confuses the issue to assume that Joseph Smith's revelation was a source for the Book of Mormon as well. 2 Nephi 3:11-12 expresses the idea that the writings from Judah will grow together with the Nephite writings, but the stick symbolism of Ezekiel 37 found in Views is absent.

Similarly, "Urim and Thummim" is not found in the Book of Mormon at all. The instruments of translation into which Mosiah could "look" to interpret the record of Zeniff are described, not named: "the things called interpreters" (Mosiah 8:13). "Urim and Thummim" was apparently first used in Mormonism by William W. Phelps in 1833 (Evening and Morning Star 1 [Jan. 1833]:8). Most members of the Church probably identify the interpreters with Urim and Thummim — Joseph Smith did in his 1838 account — but the term is not a point of contact between Views and the Book of Mormon (JS — H 1:52).

The significant differences between Views and the Book of Mormon tend to rule out direct dependence. Views has nothing in common with the Book of Mormon in style of presentation; Views presents itself as a list of proofs while the Book of Mormon is a religious history. None of the thirty-four Indian words mentioned in Views as proof of Hebrew Indian origins appear in the Book of Mormon. Ethan Smith's Indians, as another proof of their Hebrew origins, carry the Ark of the Covenant to war. The Book of Mormon, despite recurrent wars, does not mention the ark. Ethan Smith lists numerous Indian practices which suggest Hebrew festivals, sacrifices, and temple rituals; the Book of Mormon makes no direct allusions to any practices recognized in Views. Ethan Smith claims that the Indians always migrated from north to south. Book of Mormon migrations in the New World, however, are all from south to north.

Furthermore, Book of Mormon people do not practice the Law of Moses after the coming of the Christ, and Book of Mormon remnants therefore would be expected to exhibit Christian practices and not the Hebrew practices of Views. Hence, the Book of Mormon contradicts Views on several, crucial points and the case for direct dependence fails because the Book of Mormon either significantly modifies the supposed "parallel" or does not mention it at all (Bushman 1984, 133-39; Nibley 1959).

A separate question, however, focuses on broad themes appearing in Joseph Smith's culture — for example, prophecies of a great gentile nation among the Indians which will bring the truth and restoration of Israel through conversion of the American Indians. Almost certainly they constitute the major source of ideas for Views and may have influenced the Book of Mormon as well (Views ch. 4; 1 Ne. 22:7-9; 2 Ne. 3:12; Morm. 7:1-10). The prophecies of the discovery of America and the role of a gentile nation in the Book of Mormon can be most reasonably explained, in my opinion, as popular nineteenth-century concepts inserted in the text by Joseph Smith (1 Ne. 13:10-20). In short, similarities between Views and the Book of Mormon do not require the dependence of one upon the other but are more easily explained as two reflections of common nineteenth-century assumptions about the American Indians.

No single parallel presents identical language or ideas expressed so similarly as to suggest direct dependence. Perhaps the closest is a quotation by Ethan Smith from the KJV 2 Esdras which states that the ten tribes disobeyed the Lord by taking it upon themselves to go "into a further country, where never man dwelt" (1825, 168). Ether 2:5 states that "the Lord commanded [the Jaredites] that they should go forth into the wilderness, yea, into that quarter where there never had man been." Even this similarity does not present identical phraseology and contains significant dissimilarities, for the Jaredites obey God by going into the uninhabited land while the ten tribes disobey God by doing so. Further, any similarity in language could be explained by mutual dependence on 2 Esdras which was included in Joseph Smith's Bible.