I was pleased to see addressed the question of the alleged relationship between Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon (SUNSTONE 6:3). I question the worth of many of George Smith’s observations. And I think that Sowell didn’t state his case strongly enough.

A serious and detached study of the alleged relationship between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon reveals the fact that the pronounced differences between the two works far outnumber the few weak parallels the critics have pointed out. . . . To suggest that the View of the Hebrews could have supplied Joseph Smith with the information which may have enabled him to write the Book of Mormon (what of the recent computer wordprint test?) is to suggest something which simply cannot be harmonized with all of the known facts on the matter. For instance, how could reading and even having a working knowledge of the View of the Hebrews have enabled Joseph Smith to so construct the history of the Jaredite city of Lib that it matches the archaeological sequential history of the Olmec ruin of San Lorenzo Tenochitlan?

. . .

As far as impugning the historicity of the Book of Mormon is concerned, the whole issue of the alleged connection between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon is absolutely pointless. The real place to start looking for evidence which might possibly impugn the genuineness of the Book of Mormon is in the areas of ancient Mesoamerica and the Middle East. So far no critic of the Book of Mormon has seriously tried to do this, although there have been a couple of laughable attempts. . . .