Customer Reviews

Studies of the Book of Mormon

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is a collection of a series of writings by B.H. Roberts who died in 1933, but attained rank as an LDS General Authority before he died. B.H. Roberts was the very antithesis of a dogmatic, inflexible, religious fanatic. B.H. wrote a great deal throughout his life on the Church. It must be remembered that he wrote "The Truth, the Way, the Light" and a "Comprehensive History of the Church". Anyone who reads the book should make certain they review the introduction written by the late Sterling McMurrin. McMurrin points out that B.H. wrote many books defending the LDS faith and this collection of writings has to be viewed in the context. However, after reading "Studies of the Book of Mormon" one really has to ask what Roberts believed about the Church when he died. The answer may not be simple, but in my view its unimportant.

In one series of writings, Robert tries to scientifically answer questions such as whether horses could have been in the Americas at the time the Nephites and Jaredites (look in your Book of Mormon) were supposed to have lived here. He tries to answer whether steel swords and metallurgy could have part of the culture in these continents at these times. The answers are inconclusive, but strongly suggest "difficulties" with the Book of Mormon.

However, the most fascinating part of the book is when Roberts attempts to draw parallels between a book written a few years before the Book of Mormon was translated (View of the Hebrews) and the Book of Mormon. The parallels are interesting, and at times, startling. He also explores--and answers affirmatively--the question whether Joseph Smith might have had the imagination to have written the Book of Mormon

In the end, though, one can't really answer what B.H. Roberts believed towards the end of his life. However, I concluded that would have made him most happy was the knowledge that people tried to investigate and answer for themselves, the questions that he raised. In that respect, he qualifies as a true scholar who possessed immense honesty. He's someone who both Latter Day Saints and non-Latter Day Saints should admire.

B. H. Roberts was one of the 26 general authorities of the Mormon Church from 1890 to 1933. He was appointed Church Historian and in his day was considered the most accurate and unbiased authority for early Mormon history and was regarded as a great defender of the faith. He was a thorough researcher and prolific writer. Among his many books was the seven volume "Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." I consider his "Studies of the Book of Mormon" the most reliable and interesting backgound information on the Book of Mormon.

Roberts wrote the material on his studies just a few years before his death but never published it. About 1985 his family finally released the manuscript for publication. He made an excellent study of the environment and source material available to Joseph Smith in the 1820's.

Divided into three parts the first part of "Studies of the Book of Mormon" Roberts deals with his quandry in attempting to answer five questions which were asked by a Doctor who had read the Book of Mormon given to him by a friend. These questions were of archeological and linquistic nature and when his study could not provide adequate answers he wrote 141 pages to the general authorities of the Mormon Church presenting the problem. A two day meeting was held in the Salt Lake Temple to get their input and to ask for help from the Lord but no resolution was forthcoming. Shortly thereafter Roberts was called to preside over the Eastern States Mission.

In the second section of "Studies of the Book of Mormon" Roberts gives a report of his research while traveling around the Eastern States visiting libraries looking for what was being published in the newspapers and books in the days of Joseph Smith. He found a book "View of the Hebrews" by a minister, Ethan Smith, published 8 years previous to the Book of Mormon. There are many parallels between the two books. One example is six chapters of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon was previously used by Ethan as proof of his point that the American Indians were part of the lost 10 tribes of Israel. Ethan preached this idea in some of his sermons stating that we should treat the Indians as equals not as animals as was done by many in those days.

Roberts found in the Manchester, NY newspaper of August 1823 where Joseph Smith's family lived that Ethan Smith was advertising his coming lecture and presentation of his book.

Furthurmore, Roberts found that Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith's cousin and later scribe, lived in the same town where Ethan was minister and that Cowdery's Mother and Sister were members of his congregation. Cowdery also was a traveling book saleman in the summer time for the bookstore/publisher of "View of the Hebrews."

The last section of Roberts' "Studies" is a side by side column comparison of passages from the Book of Mormon and "View of the Hebrews."

Roberts' books have always been regarded as great source material but few Mormons are even aware of his last writing and invaluable source material. Having been an active Mormon myself I found this book very facinating, enlightening and well documented. I recommend it to all Mormons and Non-Mormons alike as a book which is well written, easy reading and will hold your interest.

This book should be a requirement for anyone studying the Book of Mormon. B.H. Roberts was the first Mormon apologist, President of the First Quorum of Seventies and Mormon Church Historian. B.H. Roberts was additionally recognized as the Mormon Church's most accomplished scriptorian of his day. Apostle Talmage gave Roberts five questions that had been asked by a member. B.H. Roberts researched the questions and went to the Twelve and First Presidency and said he could not give satisfactory answers to the questions. He asked for the Brethren to pray about the questions and get the answers from God. Each of the Brethren stood, bore their testimony of the Book of Mormon and the meeting was over. Roberts was then asked to come up with the best answers he could. These answers were given to the member who originally asked the questions.

This started Roberts on the mission of proving or disproving the Book of Mormon. He reviewed the book for inconsistencies in technology, zoology and anthropology. He presents a study of the technology of steel, glass, the wheel, metal coins and other advances that were questionable. He also covered the problems with horses, elephants, oxen, cattle and other problems. He covered the linguistics and anthropological information available at the time in trying to reconcile an Israelite migration to North America. In all, his conclusions are consistent with the current scientific community. He proposed, and then rejected, what Mormons know today as the Limited Geography Theory. He then undertakes a review of Joseph Smith and the literature available to Joseph Smith and concludes that there are significant parallels to "View of the Hebrews" by Ethan Smith. He did not at the time have the information that Oliver Cowdrey's family were parishioners of Ethan Smith. He concluded that with the structure of "View of the Hebrews", the 1796 version of the King James Bible and Joseph Smith's imagination, he would have no trouble writing the book.

The book is analytical in nature, reviewing all possible options. Mormon Apologists claim that this book was written so the Brethren would know the weaknesses of the Book of Mormon. If you read the book you can clearly see that this is not the case. Roberts was struggling and searching for ways to justify the inconsistencies found in the Book of Mormon. By the end of the study it is clear that he no longer has a testimony of the Book of Mormon. The book was not published for 60 years and finally released in 1985. The Mormon Church has had this information since 1930, but never released it. The problems discussed in this book are the same problems that Mormon apologists struggle with today. The answers that the apologists give are no more satisfactory today than they were at the time of B.H. Roberts.

This book is a necessary read for any budding apologist. It is also a book that can be given to a believing Mormon, because it was written by a recognized General Authority. B.H. Roberts was the editor of the "Comprehensive History of the Church" and the "Mormon Doctrine of Deity."

B. H. Roberts critically analyzes questions from an inquirer regarding the Book of Mormon. This set is really a set of three studies into the book's difficulties and origins.

The first "Book of Mormon Difficulties" involves difficulties in the diverse number of languages of the American Indians, the presence of various animals (e.g. horse, elephant) in historic times, the use of silk, and the presence of various metallic constructions (steel) not entirely apparent to have existed the New World. Roberts answers the questions as best as can be possible, with the major exception of the language problem which baffles his inquiry.

The second and third pieces, "Book of Mormon Studies" and "Parallel", examine the evidence relating the origin of the Mormon scripture to E. Smith's "View of the Hebrews". This evidence is compelling, especially in the context of its presenter, an ardent defender of the Mormon faith. What is exemplary about Robert's presentation is his honesty in resolving his dilemmas and the manner in which he goes about his research. Far too often, a researcher will seek evidences to support his position, as is the cause of the numerous contradictory apologetics presented in christianity today. There are few researchers today who would even consider the remote possibility of an assailant's argument being correct, with a worthy attempt of discovery. Most simply disregard all arguments contrary to their belief system. The Roberts' studies are a refreshing source of inquiry in the field of religious discussion.

I would recommend this book for Mormon and non-Mormon alike and would recommend further the discovery of other works which both contribute to the Book of Mormon difficulties and answer them.

There are two sides of any argument, often neither is right. This motivates my own personal study in many areas, please respond to my email for further comments or further reading suggestions involving the Book of Mormon.

Back in 1979, while working as a manuscript cataloger in the Archives and Manuscript division of the Harold B. Lee Library, I first came across a copy of this manuscript. Someone had donated a photo-copy of the original and I had to evaluate and catalog it for the collection. I discovered that the library already had an excellent copy of the manuscript with associated documents and that the set was already cataloged and available for examination. Instead of tossing the second copy, my boss let me keep it.

When "Brig" Madsen published this edition, I was a bit confused. I studied under Dr. Madsen for my BA in History at the U, and I generally liked his approach to Western Americana. Why then, I wondered, did he neglect to include B.H. Roberts' cover letter that accompanied the original manuscript? The cover letter states 1- that the manuscript is not complete and thus not ready for publication, 2- That Roberts is assuming a "Devil's Advocate" position and that the conclusions in the manuscript are not necessarily his own, 3- The manuscript represented what B.H. Roberts felt were the best arguments anti-Mormons could make against the Book of Mormon, therefore they had to be seriously considered so that Mormons could prepare accordingly.

The relevance of this work today is really the most curious issue. At the time Roberts put this study together, most Mormons accepted the "continental model" of the Book of Mormon. The only Mormons who advocated a "limited geographical model" seemed to be limited to those who had actually created the "graphical models" based on the text of the Book of Mormon. Since 1984, when the _Ensign_ published several lengthy articles that advocated the "limited geographical model," the continental model seems to be accepted by the fringe or by individuals who (strangely enough) don't even accept the Book of Mormon as anything but fiction.

This realignment is significant to the relevance of this Study. Roberts' evidence pounds a stake directly into the heart of the continental model. Once you begin to restrict the geographical area into a small section, his primary arguments collapse.

That leaves only the parallel, which was the weakest argument to begin with. Heck, I might as well draw similar parallels between Ben Hur and the Book of Mormon and argue that Lew Wallace drew on Joseph Smith for his little romance. Parallels like this could be significant if one of two things could be shown: 1- the paralleled item was unique only to the Book of Mormon and the View of the Hebrews or 2- the paralleled item could be shown to be unique to the early 19th Century. For over 50 years now, the Mormon apologetic literature has shown over and over and point by point that neither of these conditions hold. That means, since both works are addressing the same subject area, there is going to be a naturally occurring Venn Diagram overlap. Emphasis on the similarities ignores the much more significant differences occurring outside that Venn overlap. Because interest in View of the Hebrews was so high, and because the differences were so readily apparent, for many years the only place one could purchase a copy of "Views" was through BYU Press.

I found the Study to be interesting, because it reveals the intellectual integrity of B.H. Roberts. And because I am aware of his post-Study actions, the Study demonstrates that Roberts compartmentalized his faith and the material he understood up to that time.

While the LDS church concentrated on celebrating its centennial in 1930, B.H. Roberts (on his own) organized and celebrated in New York State a Book of Mormon centennial in 1929. I've read several oral histories of Mormon missionaries who were in the Eastern States Mission at the time and who observed Roberts and listened to him. His actions and statements don't come across as someone who had "lost their testimony" in the Book of Mormon. In 1926, B.H. Roberts authorized the 2nd Edition publication of New Witnesses for God. The 2nd and 3rd Volumes of that set contained Roberts' detailed analysis of the Book of Mormon. Again hardly the actions of a person who had lost his faith in the Book of Mormon. There is some evidence that as early as 1909, Roberts was toying with a "limited geography" view of the Book of Mormon (see New Witnesses For God 3:502 - 1909 edition). Since this Study was published, there have been many other published studies detailing Roberts public and private statements on the Book of Mormon.

In conclusion, I think that the failure to include the cover letter and to include the entire context of Roberts public and private statements reflect poorly on the whole context of this document. However, I am pleased that the Study was published. I will read anything that B.H. Roberts writes. I hope all the other reviewers of this book feel the same.

The agony that a fine academician and scholar such as B. H. Roberts must have endured is evident in this collection of his letters and essays. One can empathize with his struggles as he tries valiantly to reconcile his religious yearnings with the rigors of genuine inquiry. Ultimately, the book makes no sweeping conclusions as to B. H. Roberts's personal beliefs regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. But, what is clear, is that he was deeply troubled by the preponderance of the evidence that comes down against it. The book is as much an exploration of the difficulties of maintaining intellectual integrity while trying to hold religious beliefs as it is a continuing source of serious challenge to the lofty claims made by the Book of Mormon itself.

Brigham H. Roberts was initially a devout Mormon. However, he was asked by an elder in his church to answer some questions about the veracity of the Book of Mormon that had been posed by a non-Mormon. To formulate a response, he made a study of the New World cultural and natural environment as it related to the Book of Mormon. That study was the beginning of a difficult examination of his own religious beliefs. Much of what he found about the New World and its natives did not square with the content of the Book of Mormon. He was also deeply troubled by many similarities he found between the Book of Mormon and Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews which was published five years before the first publication of the the Mormon scripture. In his study, Roberts presents several parallels between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews, showing that the Book of Mormon had literary ties to the early nineteenth century.

Though this book presents a lot of interesting information, it was written during the early twentieth century, and much has developed since then. For a more up-to-date look at the beginnings of Mormonism, I might suggest reading David Persuitte's "Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon." It goes into considerably more detail in showing the similarities between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews and provides much additional information about the beginnings of Mormonism.

B.H. Roberts, Mormon General Authority and Mormon Church Historian. Was concerned about questions being asked about the Book of Mormon. He believed the future generation would be educated and would not except the Book of Mormon with blind faith. He went to looking for questions in the Book of Mormon that at present could not be answered. He shows in the first half the many problems there are in proving the Book of Mormon to be historically correct. In the second half, he takes on the question, could Joseph Smith have used some other work to create the Book of Mormon? Roberts disscovers, that indeed he could have. The name of the work was "A View of the Hebrews" by Ethan Smith. Roberts goes through chapter by chapter of Ethan Smiths book to show the similarites between the two books. Then in the last part Roberts takes The Book of Mormon and A View of the Hebrews in two columns, side by side. He shows how the Book of Mormon could have been created using "A View of the Hebrews."

The Book has the making of a drama worthy of MI5 in the 1950's ; someone on the inside making a startling discovery and perusing old and forgotten manuscripts and coming to shocking questions that could upset the status quo. Unfortunately for Roberts and for the readers of this book there is less glamor than 1950's spycraft and more emphasis on old and forgotten books. What is fasinating is the depth of research and the amount of time is book obviously included. Regardless of how boring you may find the material, the book is an unpolished masterpiece and mounument of effort. Some may say that B. H. Roberts evidence is outdated, and certainly they are right. People will get stirred up whether the case has gotten better ( which it would appear to Roberts that it couldn't have gotten much worse), or whether the historical truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is looking better in face of the research decide for yourself, but read B. H. Roberts to understand the nature of your inquiry and the integrity to face the answers. I heartily recommend it to the entire staff of FARMS, particularly.

I have quoted below what Roberts said about "View of the Hebrews," and it is not at all clear that this was not his genuine belief. A couple other reviewers said that Roberts letter about playing "devils advocate" should have been included, and I agree.

Nevertheless, these writers completely ignore the social pressure of Roberts many family and friends. If he had not backed off, he would have lost everything. I personally knew an aged professor who told me that he was an atheist. He had been on a mission decades before, and when he died, he had a Mormon funeral at a Mormon ward.

I'm not making up this story, and in my own life, I could name at least fifteen people who do not believe a word of the Book of Mormon, but who are still on the roles because of social pressure--fear of hurting parents or other relatives, and fear of loosing friends.

The pressure on a public figure like Roberts would have silenced him. If you look at what he wrote below, it is impossible to believe that he was simply playing the "devil's advocate." The picture is much more complicated than that.

Robert's said:

"It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith's story of the Book of Mormon's origin."

"The material in Ethan Smith's book is of a character and quantity to make a ground plan for the Book of Mormon: It supplies a large amount of material respecting American antiquities--leading to the belief that civilized or semi-civilized nations in ancient times occupied the American continents" (B. H. Roberts, p. 240, above).