Charles A. Davies defends the BOM from claims of plagiarizing VOTH.
Charles A. Davies, "View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon," Saints' Herald, August 1, 1962, 9–11
OVER-enthusiastic advocates of the Book of Mormon have stated that there was no knowledge of a pre-Columbian history of the Americas prior to the coming of the Book of Mormon. This, of course, is not so, as many of the works in the libraries of the United States show. . . . One of these, however, merits our attention at this time because claims have been made that the Book of Mormon is based upon it. View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith was published in 1823 in Poultney, Vermont. Concern arose recently when a student came across a statement of Fawn Brodie in her book No Man Knows My History, first published in 1946.
. . .
Interest in this particular volume arises from the fact that it expounds the theory that the American Indians are the lost tribes of Israel. Naturally this theory brings the Book of Mormon into focus. A careful examination shows that the two books are not identical in theme, content, language, or form, but there is sufficient common ground to raise the question. Several hostile critics have not hesitated to affirm that Joseph Smith copied from View of the Hebrews.
. . .
Difference in Form
The forms of the two works are very different and distinct. View of the Hebrews is in the English and idiom of the author's time. The language of the Book of Mormon is unique, and students have noted many evidences not of a superficial language similarity but of deep and distinctive tones of a culture which identifies the Semitic origin of the people whose religious history is therein outlined. This ancient local color is absent from the View of the Hebrews.
. . .
To summarize: The similarity between the Book of Mormon and Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews is so far as both show the American Indians to be descended from the Hebrew people is not disputed. This theme is interwoven through the Book of Mormon record but not presented as an argument or a theory. This theory is not distinctive to either text, there being a number of works of the subject published prior to both.
. . .
Finally the assumption that Joseph Smith came into contact with the works of Ethan Smith is unproved and no evidence has been produced that the two men ever met or that Joseph Smith had access to the other's works.