The Alleged 19th-Century "Foundational Source"

Ethan Smith's Book

The 1825 edition of Ethan Smith's work, View of the Hebrews (hereafter VOTH), is the text usually identified by anti-Mormons as Joseph Smith's "foundational source" for the Book of Mormon. For most anti-LDS critics, the VOTH or Ethan Smith theory is the major component of the environmental theory.

The Missing Connection

The Ethan Smith theory shares a major flaw with the Spaulding theory, in that there is no evidence whatsoever that Joseph Smith read or even knew of the alleged source, in this case VOTH, prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon.

In conjunction with this fact, it is worth noting that Ethan Smith's book was not even mentioned as a potential source for Joseph Smith until decades after the Nephite record was published.

Previous Refutations Of Alleged VOTH-Book of Mormon Parallels

Anti-Mormons have written dozens of books and tracts which purport to document parallels between VOTH and the Nephite record. Critics see their parallels as numerous and complex and as strong evidence of the Book of Mormon's foundational dependence on VOTH.

The most that can be said for the anti-Mormon case is that there are some general resemblances between VOTH and the Nephite text. LDS scholars have thoroughly discredited almost all of the alleged parallels between VOTH and the Book of Mormon, and they have documented numerous significant differences between the two works (Welch 1985a; 1985b: Sperry 1967:176-179; Scharffs 164-169; Crowley 1961:111-133; Weldon and Butterworth 14-16; Nibley 1989:193-206). John Welch's two refutations of the VOTH theory, An Unparallel: Ethan Smith and the Book of Mormon and Finding Answers to B. H. Roberts' Questions, are thorough and convincing. I would recommend them to anyone who wants to investigate this subject in greater detail.

Since so many excellent rebuttals to the VOTH theory have already been written, I will limit myself to a brief examination of a few of the differences between Ethan Smith's book and the Nephite record.

Some Differences

The average page of VOTH (second edition) contains 347 words. The entire book is 286 pages long, or approximately 98,895 words (Crowley 1961:110). The average page of the Book of Mormon, on the other hand, contains 458 words. There are 531 pages in the Nephite record (1981 edition), or approximately 239,076 words. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is nearly twice as long as VOTH.

Ethan Smith concentrated his attention on the Indians of North America.

VOTH says little about Mesoamerica. In contrast, the Book of Mormon describes in some detail two major civilizations that once flourished in that region.

Ethan Smith stated in VOTH that the Indians were to be restored to Palestine (64), whereas the Book of Mormon designates their Zion to be in the New World.

According to Ethan Smith, the Indians migrated "through a region where it was always winter, snow and frozen" (78). The Book of Mormon groups came to the New World by ship. The words "snow" and "frozen" don't even appear in the Nephite text.

In connection with the above, Ethan Smith repeatedly asserted that the Indians crossed the Bering Strait enroute to the New World (115). Again, the Book of Mormon groups came to Mesoamerica by ship, and they never went near the Bering Strait.

In VOTH, Ethan Smith expressed the view that "we are to expect no new revelations from heaven and the days of miracles are thought to be past" (168).

This is diametrically opposed to the view of the Nephite record (2 Nephi 28-29; Mormon 9).

Ethan Smith mentions pyramids (179). Nothing is said about pyramids in the Book of Mormon.

Ethan Smith believed the Indians to be descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel (2). No such view can be found in the Book of Mormon. Lehi's family was descended from Manasseh, and the Nephite text states that the ten lost tribes were in another region of the earth (3 Nephi 7:13-26).

Anti-Mormons make much of the fact that Ethan Smith's work "tells of a book preserved but finally buried with an Indian chief" (Jonas 39). This is supposed to be the basis of the story of the Book of Mormon plates, which were preserved but finally sealed up in the earth by Moroni. However, Ethan Smith's information about the Indian book came to him third-hand, not straight from an angel of God as in the case of the Nephite record. Furthermore, Ethan Smith had no idea how old the book was, although it doesn't seem to have been very old, judging from the description of it.

Moreover, the book was written on parchment, and the Indians buried it because they couidn't read it and because they thought it "would be of no further use to them" (E. Smith 223; Hougey 44). This hardly compares with the Book of Mormon records, which were written on metallic plates, which were precisely dated, which were read and viewed as priceless and inspired by the Nephites, and which were buried to come forth in the latter days as an integral part of the restoration of the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

A Puzzling Incident

In the June 1 and June 15 issues of the 1842 Times and Seasons there appeared printed extracts from Josiah Priest's book, American Antiquities (1838 edition), which cites and quotes passages from VOTH. Priest's book was cited as evidence for the Book of Mormon. At that time, Joseph Smith was the editor of the Times and Seasons. A natural question arises: If Joseph Smith had copied from VOTH, would he have risked drawing attention to it by publicly quoting from a book which contained extracts from it? This would have indeed been extremely puzzling behavior if the Prophet had borrowed from VOTH, especially if it had been his "foundational source"!

This is an obvious but important point, and anti-Mormons have yet to satisfactorily explain it. It is just common sense that plagiarists don't go around drawing attention to their sources, especially in a public forum! Since it had not yet occurred to anyone to accuse Joseph Smith of borrowing from VOTH, why on earth would he have risked exposure by quoting (or allowing to be quoted) a book which contained extracts from it?