Ethan Smith. View of the Hebrews: 1825 Second Edition (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1996) ix—xxii.
Charles D. Tate, Jr.
No one seems to have suggested any connection between Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews (hereafter VH) and the Book of Mormon until 1903. According to Richard L. Bushman (191), a connection was first claimed by I. Woodbridge Riley, a non-Latter-day Saint who published his Ph.D. dissertation from Yale under the title, The Founder of Mormonism: A Psychological Study of Joseph Smith Jr. In it, Riley listed the first two editions of VH (1823, 1825) as a possible source of the Book of Mormon. Although he mentioned VH as another book that claims Hebrew origin of the American Indians, he argued that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself since he listed himself as the author in the first edition; “hence an analysis of its contents will serve as an analysis of the prophet’s mind” (111). Riley’s reference was not the first time these two volumes were mentioned together, however. At least twice earlier, Latter-day Saints noted that VH substantiated what the Book of Mormon said. The first reference appeared in the 1 June 1842 Times and Seasons, printed in Nauvoo. It published, without editorial comment, a seven-paragraph excerpt from Josiah Priest’s American Antiquities, which quoted VH to support Book of Mormon statements of Israelite origin of the American Indians. And in the 1 October 1902 Juvenile Instructor, George Reynolds noted that he had just seen VH and found that it also substantiated the Book of Mormon (595).
The next reference is currently the most widely known suggestion of a connection between VH and the Book of Mormon. In 1921, in response to a non-Mormon query concerning “inconsistencies and anachronisms” in the Book of Mormon (Allen clxvi), Elder B. H. Roberts of the First Council of the Seventy studied the two books to determine possible parallels between them. He prepared two studies: “Book of Mormon Difficulties,” which he presented to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in January 1922, and “A Book of Mormon Study,” which he had hoped to give to President Heber J. Grant in March of that year. This study considered areas Elder Roberts thought vulnerable to antagonists’s claims of Book of Mormon indebtedness to VH and suggested that the Brethren prepare to answer such claims. When he was called to be a mission president in the spring of 1922, he left his studies as they were, some parts still not proofread, until he returned in 1927. At that time, he prepared “A Parallel,” a list of eighteen parallels between VH and the Book of Mormon, which he sent to Elder Richard R. Lyman of the Twelve for his information, with the note, “Please don’t copy it.” This list was retained by the Roberts family until 1946, when Elder Roberts’s son, Benjamin E. Roberts, duplicated it and gave it to members of the Timpanogos Club in Salt Lake City. The subsequent publication of the study will be noted below.
In 1932, George B. Arbaugh, in Revelation in Mormonism: Its Character and Changing Forms, argued that VH could certainly have been the inspiration for the Book of Mormon.
In 1945, in her widely known biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History, Fawn M. Brodie suggested that “it may, in fact, have been View of the Hebrews that gave Joseph Smith the idea of writing an Indian History in the first place” (46). However, Brodie claimed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself by imaginatively elaborating on the ideas he gathered from many different sources, including VH. She claimed the B. H. Roberts studies in 1921-22 as proof from within the Church that the Book of Mormon was a work of plagiarism, but she did not think VH was its main source (48).
Professor Hugh Nibley of Brigham Young University quickly answered Brodie’s book with No Ma ‘am, That’s Not History (1946), wherein he asserted that Brodie’s study is a masterpiece of speculation and inference in which she intentionally picked and chose evidence to prove Joseph Smith’s claims false. As already noted, that same year Benjamin E. Roberts distributed copies of his father’s parallels. Mervin B. Hogan obtained a copy of Elder Roberts’s list and published it in the January 1956 Rocky Mountain Mason.
In 1951, Francis W. Kirkham wrote in the second volume of A New Witness for Christ in America that “a number of writers assert that the contents of the Book of Mormon regarding the Hebrew people which it describes may be traced to Joseph Smith’s knowledge of View of the Hebrews, a book written in 1823, by Ethan Smith” (391). After noting that E. Smith copied “a large amount” from Elias Boudinot’s Star in the West (1816) and that both Boudinot and Smith copied from James Adair’s The History of the American Indian (1775), Kirkham wrote that the tables of content of those three books indicate that “the Book of Mormon differs so widely in content and purpose that the knowledge of these books could have little, if any, influence on the material published in the Book of Mormon” (392). Kirkham printed in his work the tables of content from all three books plus Ethan Smith’s introduction and explanation.
In 1957 Thomas O’Dea in The Mormons agreed with Brodie that Joseph Smith got his idea that the American Indians were of Israelite descent from View of the Hebrews, and that the Book of Mormon added nothing new to those ideas “except the very important claim of presenting written remains, and these on the basis of miraculous intervention” (25).
Leslie Rumble was the next to claim that “the main theme of [the Book of Mormon] is to be found in Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews; or the Ten Tribes of Israel in America” (338). His 1960 claims were followed in 1961 by G. T. Harrison’s assertion that Joseph Smith followed an outline from VH and that “the Book of Mormon very closely held to that outline and covered the same subjects outlined in the View of the Hebrews” (45). Harrison then listed fifty-nine parallels between the two books and concluded that Joseph Smith “had the benefit and guidance of Ethan’s publication on the subject [of Indian history] to help and direct him” (66). Also in 1961, Larry S. Jonas asserted in Mormon Claims Examined that the second edition of VH “has probably more parallels with the Book of Mormon than any other book” (30). He later claimed that page 184 of VH “is the best summary of the Book of Mormon I have ever seen” (39). That page notes that the American Indians divided into peaceful and warlike parties.
In 1961 Ariel Crowley, in About the Book of Mormon, claimed that it was primarily the “extraneous circumstances” which suggested that Joseph Smith “might conceivably have had access to View of the Hebrews,” rather than internal evidence based on a comparison of the two works (111).
In its 1 August 1962 issue, the RLDS Saints’ Herald published “View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon,” in which Charles A. Davies reviewed Fawn Brodie’s claims of the origin of the Book of Mormon but dismissed them because Brodie was neither an “objective historian” nor a “consistent witness” (9). His study of VH and the Book of Mormon found “some parallels and similarities [that] are not necessarily evidence of plagiarism” (11).
In 1963 Ralph L. Foster noted in his The Book of Mormon on Trial that VH is “ironically similar to the Book of Mormon.” In that same year, Harold Hougey printed “A Parallel”: The Basis for the Book of Mormon. He expanded Elder Roberts’s list of eighteen parallels to forty-one and said that if we “combined the available information [found in VH] with an active imagination, we have all the ingredients necessary for Joseph to write the Book of Mormon!” (5). Hougey relied on the alleged connection between Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery, because they came from the same town, as Joseph Smith’s source for first seeing VH, claiming that “the main point of similarity is, of course, [the American Indians’] Hebraic origin” (22).
In a 1964 book, A Critical Study of Book of Mormon Sources, Wesley M. Jones supported the theory that VH was a source for the Book of Mormon, claiming that there was a relationship between Joseph Smith and Ethan Smith as contemporaries in religion and implying that Joseph envied Ethan’s hypotheses. Yet Jones noted that what the two men did with their common source material was “completely different. Ethan’s is a well-thought-out thesis—perhaps the work of a lifetime; a justification of a great movement, the restoration of the Lost Tribes of Ephraim. The Book of Mormon, whose basic ideas run closely parallel to those of Ethan’s work and stem from it, is essentially narrative, or history, interspersed with sermons by the Nephite prophets” (37). Also in 1964, Spencer J. Palmer and William L. Knecht published “View of the Hebrews: Substitute for Inspiration” in BYU Studies. They noted that VH references twenty-four different chapters in Isaiah and the Book of Mormon references twenty-two; but only nine chapters were cited by both texts. One of those chapters was Isaiah 66, from which VH cites verses 18, 20, and 21, while the Book of Mormon cites verse 19. The Book of Mormon cites 459 identifiable verses from Isaiah, VH cites 116, with only 23 verses common. About 1965, Modern Microfilm Company in Salt Lake City (a company owned and operated by Jerald and Sandra Tanner) published a photographic copy of View of the Hebrews and Elder Roberts’s “A Parallel.”
Ake Strom, a Finnish writer, discussed the origins of the Book of Mormon in a 1969 article, “Red Indian Elements in Early Mormonism,” published in Temenos (Helsinki). When deciding that “it is evident that [Joseph] Smith cannot have discovered all this [the content of the Book of Mormon] by himself,” Strom had to find a source for those ideas and concluded that while VH may have given Joseph some ideas, “the Bible is the main source for the Book of Mormon” (126).
The 1970s saw many publications on this subject. The 1970 Lutheran Quarterly ran an article, “The Lost Tribes of Israel and the Book of Mormon,” by Robert N. Hullinger, in which he attempted to show that Joseph Smith was “someone sincerely trying to produce additional proof for the biblical witness of revelation” (329). But he also linked Joseph’s attempt with Ethan Smith’s desire to bring the gospel to the Native Americans and noted that “the most important tradition [Ethan] Smith adduced to prove his theory [that the Indians were Israelites] was that of a lost book” (321), and that Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon to prove that theory (324).
In his BYU master’s thesis in 1971, William Riley noted that “only 56 of 407 vss. used from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon were also used in View of the Hebrews, i.e., Joseph Smith had only 13 percent of Isaiah verses in common with Ethan Smith” (14); therefore, Fawn Brodie’s claim that Joseph Smith’s references came “chiefly” from VH is questionable.
Maurice C. Burrell’s 1971 work, Wide of the Truth: A Critical Assessment of the History, Doctrines, and Practices of the Mormon Religion, noted some of the methodological difficulties with the Soloman Spaulding and VH hypotheses concerning the origin of the Book of Mormon. Solomon Spaulding wrote, in 1812, a novel concerning the early inhabitants of America. Like VH, it has been cited by critics of the Church as a possible source for the Book of Mormon. Afterwards, however, Burrell admitted that he was “prepared to subscribe to” Fawn Brodie’s theory—that “the Book of Mormon is a promising early work of historical fiction,” and that “Joseph was a talented but embryonic author whose gifts might have led him into a career as a writer of romances”—because it is “the least complicated” (35).
In 1975 Marvin W. Cowan held that both the Spaulding manuscript and the VH theories were possible answers to the source question of the Book of Mormon. He argued that there were several Spaulding manuscripts and that the one housed at Oberlin College might not be the one Joseph Smith used, even though it does contain “a number of similarities which could have served as inspiration for [Joseph] Smith to write the Book of Mormon. But since the book Manuscript Found has not been found, arguments could go on indefinitely about it” (45). He then noted, “A theory with more evidence to support it concerns the View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith” (ibid). Cowan implied that the parallels written up by B. H. Roberts created a stir of fear within the Church leadership, which proves the relationship between the two books (49).
In answering the request, “Would you respond to the theories that the Book of Mormon is based on the Spaulding manuscript or on Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews!” in the September 1976 Ensign, Bruce D. Blumell noted that it was only after the Spaulding manuscript had been found and compared to prove the Spaulding theory false, that the VH theory was formulated. He stated that while there are some broad similarities between the two books, Joseph Smith “could have borrowed more easily from the Bible or from prevailing beliefs at that time, than from View of the Hebrews” (86).
Gordon Fraser noted in his Is Mormonism Christian? (1977) that VH was just one of “at least six books or papers [that] were available to Joseph Smith and his associates that promoted the idea” of Israelites in America (131). He argued that the proposed Ethan Smith-Oliver Cowdery connection (of their being from the same town) makes the VH theory plausible. Also printed in 1977, Mormon Papers by Harry L. Ropp recounted both Fawn Brodie’s and Harold Hougey’s theories that VH was source material for the Book of Mormon.
In 1979, Truman G. Madsen published “B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon” in BYU Studies. The eighth of his ten points about Elder Roberts’s perspective on the Book of Mormon argues for his playing the “Devil’s Advocate” in his studies concerning the Book of Mormon and VH. He noted that in 1933, before his death, Elder Roberts “had concluded Ethan Smith played no part in the formation of the Book of Mormon” (441).
Two books published in 1980 mention VH as a source for the Book of Mormon. Peter Elliott’s Reasons for Disbelief argued that Joseph Smith did have the imagination necessary to write the Book of Mormon based on such a work as VH and quoted Fawn Brodie on the similarities between the two books. Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s The Changing World of Mormonism cited Elder Roberts’s eighteen similarities as evidence that there is a relationship between the two works.
The next year, 1981, was a very productive year for the controversy, with four studies published. Michael T. Griffith responded to the Tanners’ book in The Book of Mormon as Ancient History, and Wesley P. Walters wrote his master’s thesis, “The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon.” In it he assumed that because Oliver Cowdery lived in Poultney, Vermont, where Ethan Smith published his book, Oliver must have introduced Joseph Smith to VH, and then helped him dream up the wild scheme of a new religion based on the Book of Mormon.
Two other articles on the alleged indebtedness of the Book of Mormon to VH appeared in the May-June 1981 Sunstone magazine. The first article, beginning on page 44, was BYU professor Madison U. Sowell’s year-later answer to the second article, which begins on page 45. Sowell presented his paper, “Defending the Keystone, The Comparative Method Reexamined: An Overview of the Arguments For and Against View of the Hebrews as a Possible Source for the Book of Mormon,” at the 1980 Sunstone Mormon Theological Symposium in answer to George D. Smith’s paper, “Defending the Keystone, Book of Mormon Difficulties: Textual Problems Which May Challenge the Book’s Origin and Authorship Were Examined by B. H. Roberts,” which was given at the 1979 symposium. Smith’s article discussed B. H. Roberts’s eighteen parallels between VH and the Book of Mormon and Roberts’s larger “Book of Mormon Study.” Sowell gave an overview of the Ethan Smith controversy and argued that determining indebtedness by the comparative method is flawed no matter how close the two works might appear, because “no proof exists at present to show that Joseph Smith had a direct knowledge of Ethan Smith’s work. Furthermore, while obvious parallels between the two works exist, none is so close as to justify the idea that Joseph Smith was little more than a plagiarist.... It is also possible that he could have found and translated the golden plates” (53-54).
George D. Smith’s 1983 article, “Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon,” claimed that “the similarities between the Book of Mormon and A View of the Hebrews are pervasive” (25). He cited, as an example, the fact that “[Ethan Smith] tells of some Hebrew parchments ‘dug up . . . on Indian Hill (near Pittsfield, Massachusetts) . .. probably from an Indian grave,’” and compared them to “similar ideas .. . found in the Nephite figure Mormon’s description of burying sacred ‘records which had been handed down by our father,’ and burying them up ‘in the Hill Cumorah”‘ (26).
In the 1984 book The God Makers, Ed Decker and Dave Hunt quoted B. H. Roberts’s thought that Joseph Smith’s imagination might have been “supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews, [and this] would make it possible for him to create such a book as the Book of Mormon.” They assumed that because Elder Roberts was a General Authority at the time he did his study, “A Parallel” represented a general feeling of doubt held by the Brethren. Also in 1984, George D. Smith published ‘“Is There Any Way to Escape These Difficulties?’: The Book of Mormon Studies of B. H. Roberts” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Smith reviewed the history of Elder Roberts’s studies, but his interest centered on matters other than any possible indebtedness to VH, noting that “Roberts felt that Joseph Smith probably had access to View of the Hebrews” (99).
Also in 1984, Ernest H. Taves published Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, in which he first discussed the Spaulding theory, concluding, “It seems to me that the question remains open, that work needs to be done” (57). Then he turned to Ethan Smith’s VH, noting that “there are many similarities between the two books, similarities that could be taken to indicate that Joseph used View of the Hebrews as source material for the Book of Mormon. It cannot be proven that this was the case, but many have thought the suggestion very strong” (57-58). He then noted several of the B. H. Roberts parallels.
Elder Roberts’s Studies of the Book of Mormon was published in 1985, edited by Brigham D. Madsen. It contains three different papers Elder Roberts wrote in 1921-22 and 1927, selected correspondence on these studies, an introduction and bibliography by Brigham D. Madsen, and an article on B. H. Roberts by Sterling McMurrin.
Also in 1985, David Persuitte published Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon. This study covers many topics about the Prophet Joseph Smith, with chapters 9-18 discussing similarities between the Book of Mormon and VH, “so remarkable and numerous that I could only conclude that the author of the Book of Mormon had acquired an essential measure of his material and ideas, perhaps even his very ‘inspiration,’ from Ethan Smith’s book. I found, in short, that the Book of Mormon appeared to have had its conceptual origins in View of the Hebrews” (2).
In that same year, Professors John W. Welch and Truman G. Madsen published a two-part study on the matter of Elder Roberts’s work on the Book of Mormon. In Part I of “Did B. H. Roberts Lose Faith in the Book of Mormon?” (updated 1986), Professor Welch showed point by point the historical inaccuracies and bias of Brigham D. Madsen’s introduction to Book of Mormon Studies and the selection of letters printed in that volume. He showed that Elder Roberts’s “A Parallel” was a rough draft not intended for publication, and that “while some anti-Mormons have gleefully latched onto B. H. Roberts as a supposed ally in a high place, and while some dissenters have sought to create out of the dust of Roberts’s history a version of Roberts after their own image and likeness, these tactics do not withstand scrutiny. There is no significant evidence that Roberts lost faith in the Book of Mormon” by his study of VH or other works (39).
In Part II, Truman Madsen analyzed Elder Roberts’s life to see whether it shows he lost faith in the Book of Mormon because of his studies of VH. He noted Elder Roberts’ s disclaimer in his unsent letter to President Heber J. Grant that was intended to accompany his larger Book of Mormon study which included his comparisons between the Book of Mormon and VH: “In writing out this my report to you of these studies, I have written from the viewpoint of an open mind, investigating the facts of the Book of Mormon origin and authorship. Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a ‘study of Book of Mormon origins,’ for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well as that which has been produced against it, and that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it” (57-58). Truman Madsen concluded that the evidence from Roberts’s life shows that he did not believe VH was the source of the Book of Mormon.
Professor Welch published another article in 1985, “An Unparallel,” in which he noted that “Roberts knew he was articulating the views of opponents of the Book of Mormon, not stating ‘conclusions’ of his own” (4). Then Welch listed some eighty-four “unparallels” which show that the Book of Mormon is “inconsistent with or ignorant of so many of [V7/’s] most important details” (1). He concluded that “the differences far outweigh the similarities, and most of the similarities dissolve upon simple examination” (29).
Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon, written by Dan Vogel in 1986, claims that “the theory that the Indians were degenerates who destroyed their more civilized brethren . . . constitutes, so far as can be determined, an original idea with Ethan Smith” (98, n. 90). After stating that “[many] references indicate that Ethan Smith was widely read and known in the New York area [c. 1823-30],” Vogel admitted that the “sources do not prove but merely suggest Joseph’s exposure to” VH (81, n. 50).
In the March 1986 issue of the Ensign, Professor Welch reviewed the B. H. Roberts matter in “B. H. Roberts: Seeker After Truth,” using a question-answer format. Professor Welch noted Elder Roberts’s continuing faith in the Book of Mormon and his willingness to ask hard questions. He then noted several “unparallels” from his own 1985 study. Also in 1986, Welch reviewed Elder Roberts’s Studies of the Book of Mormon, Persuitte’ s Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon, and Taves’s Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, all for Pacific Historical Review.
In 1992, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism published an article “View of the Hebrews,” written by Richard C. Roberts. That article reviewed the history of the V7i/-Book of Mormon question, concluding that “substantial evidence favors the position that there is little in common between the ideas and statements in View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon” (1510).
The Refiner’s Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644- 1844 was published by John L. Brooke in 1994. Brooke asserted that “Ethan Smith was convinced that the American Indian peoples were the Lost Tribes. The same general idea would stand at the center of Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon, and it seems clear that Oliver Cowdery was familiar with Ethan Smith’s book when he joined Joseph Smith in translating the Book of Mormon in 1827 [sic]” (142-43). The author noted that “it is possible that Oliver Cowdery helped to print... View of the Hebrews. The text was printed on a press in Poultney [Vermont], and Oliver had experience as a printer” (361).
Though not mentioning Brooke’s VH claim specifically, William J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, and George L. Mitton addressed his reconstruction of the early history of the Church. “We should not expect a sympathetic interpretation of Mormon origins from Professor Brooke,” they wrote in their 1994 review of Brooke’s book. The review brings to light that “Brooke relies on late secondhand anti- Mormon accounts—taken at face value—while rejecting or ignoring eye-witness contemporary Mormon accounts of the same events or ideas” (19). With regard to Book of Mormon origins, they note that “[Brooke’s] is an uninformed judgment that relies . . . on . .. widely ridiculed speculations” (38).
These then are the books and articles that have argued for and against any connection between the Book of Mormon and VH. We present VH that follows and invite our readers to decide for themselves.
Adair, James. The History of the American Indian. London: E. and C. Dilly, 1775.
Allen, James B. “The Story of The Truth, the Way, the Life.” In The Truth, the Way, the Life, by B. H. Roberts. Ed. John W. Welch. Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 1994, clix-cxcviii.
Arbaugh, George B. Revelation in Mormonism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932.
Blumell, Bruce D. “I Have a Question.” Ensign, September 1976, 84-87.
Boudinot, Elias. Star in the West. Trenton, NJ: Fenton, Hutchinson, Dunham, 1816.
Brodie, Fawn. No Man Knows My History. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1945.
Brooke, John L. The Refiner’s Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Burrell, Maurice C. Wide of the Truth: A Critical Assessment of History, Doctrines, and Practices of Mormon Religion. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1972.
Bushman, Richard L. Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984.
Cowan, Marvin W. Mormon Claims Answered. Salt Lake City: Marvin Cowan, 1975.
Crowley, Ariel. About the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1961.
Davies, Charles A. “View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon.” Saints’ Herald, August 1962, 9-11.
Decker, Ed and Dave Hunt. The God Makers. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1984.
Elliott, Peter. Reasons for Disbelief. Australia: P. Elliott, 1980.
Foster, Ralph L. The Book of Mormon on Trial. Klamath Falls, OR: s.n., 1963.
Fraser, Gordon. Is Mormonism Christian? Chicago: Moody, 1977.
Griffith, Michael T. The Book of Mormon as Ancient History. U.S.: s.n., 1981.
Hamblin, William J., Daniel C. Peterson, and George L. Mitton. “Mormon in the Fiery Furnace Or Loftes Tryk Goes to Cambridge.” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6, no. 2 (1994): 458.
Harrison, G. T. Mormonism: Now and Then. San Diego: Truth Seeker, 1961.
Hogan, Mervin B. ‘“A Parallel,’ A Matter of Chance Versus Coincidence.” Rocky Mountain Mason, January 1956, 17-31.
Hougey, Harold. A Parallel—The Basis for the Book of Mormon. Concord, CA: Pacific, 1963.
Hullinger, Robert N. “The Lost Tribes of Israel and the Book of Mormon.” Lutheran Quarterly, 22 (1970): 319-29.
Jonas, Larry. Mormon Claims Examined. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1961.
Jones, Wesley M. A Critical Study of Book of Mormon Sources. Detroit: Harlo Press, 1964.
Kirkham, Francis W. A New Witness for Christ in America. Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing and Publishing, 1942.
Madsen, Truman G. “B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon.” BYU Studies 19 (summer 1979): 427-45.
Nibley, Hugh. No Ma’am That’s Not History. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946.
O’Dea, Thomas. The Mormons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Palmer, Spencer J. and William L. Knecht. “View of the Hebrews: Substitute for Inspiration.” BYU Studies 5 (winter 1964): 105-13.
Persuitte, David. Joseph Smith and the Origin of the Book of Mormon. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1985.
Priest, Josiah. American Antiquities. Albany, NY: Hoffman and White, 1833.
Reynolds, George. “View of the Hebrews.” Juvenile Instructor 37 (1 October 1902): 595-97.
Riley, I. Woodbridge. The Founder of M or monism. New York: Dodd and Mead, 1902.
Riley, William. “A Comparison of Passages from Isaiah and Other Old Testament Prophets of Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon.” Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1971.
Roberts, B. H. A Book of Mormon Study. Provo, UT: F.A.R.M.S, 1985.
Studies of the Book of Mormon. Ed. Brigham D. Madsen. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985.
Roberts, Richard C. “View of the Hebrews,” In Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Ed. Daniel H. Ludlow. New York: Macmillan, 1992. 1509-10.
Ropp, Harry L. The Mormon Papers. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977.
Rumble, Leslie. “The Book of Mormon.” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 60 (1960): 227-37, 338-45.
Smith, Ethan. View of the Hebrews. Poultney, VT: Smith and Shute, 1823, 2nded. 1825.
View of the Hebrews. Photomechanical reprint of 1825 ed. Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm, 1965.
View of the Hebrews. Reprint of 1823 ed. New York: Arno, 1977.
Smith, George D. “Defending the Keystone: Book of Mormon Difficulties.” Sunstone 6, no. 3 (1981): 45-50.
“Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.” Free Inquiry 4 (winter 1983): 20-31. Republished in On the Barricades: Religion and Free Inquiry in Conflict. Ed. Robert Basil, Mary Beth Gehrman, and Tim Madigan. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1989, 137-56.
“Is There Any Way to Escape These Difficulties?” Dialogue 17 (summer 1984): 94-111.
Sowell, Madison U. “Defending the Keystone: The Comparative Method Reexamined.” Sunstone 6, no. 3 (1981): 44, 50-54.
Strom, Ake. “Red Indian Elements in Early Mormonism.” Temenos 5 (1969): 120-68.
Tanner, Jerald and Sandra. The Changing World of Mormonism. Chicago: Moody, 1980.
Taves, Ernest H. Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1984.
Vogel, Dan. Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986.
Walters, Wesley P. “The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon.” Master’s thesis, Covenant Theological Seminary, 1981.
Welch, John W. “An Unparallel.” Provo, UT: F.A.R.M.S., 1985.
“B. H. Roberts: Seeker After Truth.” Ensign, March 1986,56-62.
Review of Studies of the Book of Mormon, by B. H. Roberts, Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon, by David Persuitte; and Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon by Ernest H. Taves. Pacific Historical Review 55, no. 4 (November 1986): 619-23.
Truman G. Madsen. “Did B. H. Roberts Lose Faith in the Book of Mormon?” Provo, UT: F.A.R.M.S., 1986.