10) View of the Hebrews (first published in 1823) tells a story remarkably similar to the one told in the Book of Mormon (published in 1830).

Answer: The first European settlers in America wondered about the origin of the Native Americans. Considering the fact that nearly all New Englanders believed in the Flood, the early Americans had to have come from the Old World in some fashion. The dispersion of the 10 lost tribes offered a convenient explanation—which would mean that the Native Americans might have retained former Hebrew-like characteristics or customs. Ethan Smith (no relation to Joseph Smith) published View of the Hebrews to highlight the Hebrew/Native American connection.

Latter-day Saints, of course, don’t believe that the Book of Mormon came to the New World as part of the 10 tribe dispersion, and most academic members believe that the Americas were originally populated (at least in large part) by migrations over 10,000 years ago through what is now referred to as the Bering Strait. Any similarities between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews are coincidental and superficial (see the “sharp shooter’s fallacy” in #9). There are far more dissimilarities than there are similarities. In fact, many of the things which View of the Hebrews presents as strong evidence for the Hebrew origin of the Native Americans are completely missing from the Book of Mormon.

A number of the parallels between the two books are really not parallels at all. Both books mention the destruction of Jerusalem, for example, but View of the Hebrews refers to the Roman attack in AD 70 while the Book of Mormon refers to the Babylonian attack in 586 B.C. Both claim that Hebrew speaking people came to the Americas but View of the Hebrews claims they came by land—over the Bering Strait—while the Book of Mormon tells us they came by boat. There are a number of other such “unparallels” between the two works.

While some critics today theorize that Joseph Smith stole many of the elements from View of the Hebrews to incorporate into the Book of Mormon, this apparently went unnoticed by the critics in Joseph Smith’s own day. Critics claim that since Ethan Smith (the author of View of the Hebrews) was Oliver Cowdery’s pastor (in 1823) that Oliver (who later became Joseph’s scribe) was instrumental in getting Joseph Smith to borrow details from View of the Hebrews. Interesting how none of Oliver’s other parishioners pointed this out.

Hey, wait a minute. Aren’t you the same Oliver Cowdery that once sat next to me at Church taking notes of the all the cool Hebrew-Indian connections that reverend Ethan Smith used to tell us in Church? And now you put some of those same characteristics in the Golden Bible?! Come on, who are trying to fool?

The only early Mormon-related reference to View of the Hebrews (of which I’m aware) comes from Joseph Smith himself who, in a Time and Seasons article (the LDS newspaper of the day), briefly quotes from View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon. Yeah—a very con-man-like thing to do.

I stole the material from View of the Hebrews and now I’ll quote the same book in support for my own creative work.

What makes this all the more interesting is that Joseph Smith actually missed some of the really good stuff contained in View of the Hebrews—supposed evidences that really tied the Native Americans to the Hebrews. According to Ethan, the Native Americans had an imitation Ark of the Covenant, practiced circumcision, and observed the Passover—none of which are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Ethan claimed that the early Native Americans utilized a large number of temple-related symbols and rituals such as robes of the High Priest (including the Ephod), ritual purification, and washings. Never mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith missed some of the coolest parallels and instead settled for parallels that are tenuous at best. Why even bother borrowing from a book that supplies so little fodder? In 1996 BYU republished View of the Hebrews so anyone can make their own comparison and see for themselves just how dissimilar they are.

11) Critics like to claim that Elder B.H. Roberts (a member of the Quorum of the Seventy in the late 1800s) faltered in his testimony, in part, because of a study he wrote detailing supposed parallels between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews.

Answer: First, it should be understood that even if the critics are right, it would be sad but not in any way detrimental to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Each person lives ultimately by faith and must come to their own conclusion regarding the truthfulness of spiritual things. While it hasn’t happened in many years, we know that some past Church leaders of high-standing fell into apostasy. These individual episodes of apostasy speak about their beliefs and/or actions; they do not reveal anything about the nature of the truth of the Church.

Second, the actual evidence (and when I say “evidence” I mean the overwhelming majority of all the things we have that were written or said by Roberts) demonstrates that he was a faithful, believing member until his death. So why the preoccupation with View of the Hebrews? It’s really not so peculiar—Roberts was an intellectual and understood that to really show the strength of a position, you often have to focus on any potential weaknesses. Roberts played devil’s advocate. Only by gathering together all the possible arguments that might suggest that the Book of Mormon was a 19th century fictional creation could one really argue that the book was not a product of its time.