Back to Mormonism Researched Page

B.H. Roberts Declares Faith in Book of Mormon

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

The issue of B.H. Roberts losing faith in the Book of Mormon is usually abused. Even Brigham H. Madsen, one of the editors of the B.H. Roberts "Studies of the Book of Mormon," Univ. of Illinois Press, 1985, says that the evidence that B.H. Roberts lost his faith over his studies of the Book of Mormon is inconclusive. To quote..."The record is mixed." (p. 29).

And as Daniel C. Peterson notes, even D. Michael Quinn in his book "Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power" seems to doubt that Roberts lost his faith, or at least, the evidence does not show it. (See his review of the useless pamphlet on Roberts by the whimsical anti-Mormon James R. Spencer, in "Review of Books," Vol. 9, #1, 1997, pp.69-86, comment on Quinn on p. 80, footnote 24).

Davis Bitton described the fiery and quite outspoken Roberts showing that he never shied away from controversial arguments, whether within the church with the brethren or outside with the non-Mormons. ("A Masterwork of Mormon Theology", in Roberts, "The Truth, the Way, the Life " (hereafter cited as TWL), xxxix-xl (561-7). James B. Allen also noted that despite his disappointment in the brethren's responses, he continued preaching from the BofM all his life ("The Story of 'The Truth, the Way, the Life', in "Ibid.," pp. clxxvi-clxxvii)

"It is decisively significant, therefore, that this frank and plainspoken man continued to testify to the truth of the Book of Mormon right up to his death in 1933." (Peterson, "Ibid.," p. 81)

Most interestingly, in the TWL, Roberts used the resurrected Christ in the BofM as one of the key evidences of His resurrection, which would scarecly make sense if he regarded that appearance as a piece of American Frontier fiction.

What critics have said of Roberts losing faith is silly in light of what he told the Presidency anyway. "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." (Brigham D. Madsen, "B.H. Roberts Studies of the Book of Mormon," p. 57).

Isn't it interesting that critics continue to ignore this?

What, indeed WAS Roberts position? Had the critics bothered to do just a smidgin of reading they would have found that Roberts himself said "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 'proetcon,' as well that which has been produced aainst 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."*** (MY EMPHASIS - quote in Brigham D. Madsen, "B.H. Roberts Study of the Book of Mormon" p. 58) Further evidence for this is in the study itself. Pages in parenthesis

This study ***SUPPOSES*** that it is more than likely that the Smith family possessed a copy of this book by Ethan Smith. (155)

All this, it ***COULD BE SAID*** by one ***DISPOSED TO CRITICIZE*** the Book of Mormon (182)

it will be thought ***BY SOME*** (p. 197)

***THE TENTATIVE SUGGESTION*** of Ethan Smith's book-being the ground plan for the BofM (p. 197)

The ***POSSIBILITY*** of it, ON THE THEORY of a merely human origin for the Book of Mormon, is quite thinkable (p. 211)

On the ***ASSUMPTION*** that VH formed the ground plan for the BofM (p. 219)

***ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF THE INQUIRY*** that the author of the Book of Mormon was Joseph Smith (p. 226)

***IF IT BE ASSUMED*** that he is the author of it, ***THEN*** it COULD BE said (p. 251)

UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE BOFMIS OF HUMAN ORIGIN (p. 277)

IF the BofM is of human origin THEN (309-310).

(See Matt Roper - "Review of Books," vol. 9, #1, 1997, p. 101f)

Roberts specifically said that these are arguments which MIGHT BE used by those ALREADY PREDISPOSED to view the BofM as of modern origin. In fact, Roberts even acknowledged that having these kind of arguments would be terrific for Mormons to have and know, because :it would be greatly to the advantage of our Defenders of the Faith, if they had in hand a thorough digest of the subject matter." (Madsen, "B.H. Roberts Study of the Book of Mormon" p. 60).

Roberts, based on the evidence of his OWN WRITINGS certainly DID use the devil's advocate. He didn't losr faith at all, but was using the anti-Mormon arguments AT THEIR STRONGEST in order for Mormons to be able to combat them. Critics are still using the old worn and tired outdated and already refuted arguments today! So much for Roberts desire! No matter how much information is available to critics, they still refuse to update!

That was Roberts position. He ended his life the last several years researching and writing his TWL, and therein in many places is his affirmation of the BofM, his assumption that it was genuine scripture and that Lehi really had lived. The critics are being plain silly for refusing to come to grips with this. Of course, it is oh so much more fun for them to justify their own disbelief if they can show a General Authority lost his through research. But in order for them to conclude such, they must do the one thing they are the kings at doing. ***IGNORE THE EVIDENCE***

From B.H. Roberts, "The Truth, The Way, The Life," Stan Larson, ed., Smith Research Associates, 1994:

p. xvii, Sterling M. McMurrin notes that "Roberts strongly defended the divine anthropomorphism which was basic in the teachings of Joseph Smith. Roberts insisted on taking literally the anthropomorphisms that are obvious in the Bible, and he supported the doctrine as well by reference to the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and modern revelation."

p. 165, More consistent is it with right reason - which is but intelligence in action - to accept the light-giving and inspiring thought of the ancient American Scripture - the Book of Mormon..."

p. 276, Roberts in discussing the pre-existence of our spirits utilizes the Book of Mormon in helping him expound what he perceived as correct doctrine.

p. 293, Roberts calls the Book of Mormon up as a second witness to the truth of the meaning of this earth life, and importance of the Fall of Adam, and Roberts calls the Book of Mormon, "The American volume of scripture..."

p. 447, "Also in the Book of Mormon is given a most dramatic and soul'thrilling testimony to the resurrection of the Christ..."

p. 541, Speaking of the Book of Mormon, Roberts says "This record discloses the hand-dealings of God with these ancient people...and also gives the account of the visits of the risen Christ to them..."

Here the evidence does not demonstrate that Roberts lost faith in the Book of Mormon at all. He is using the BofM to seriously illustrate Gospel principles, and even the historical principle of showing the resurrected Christ!

Michael Dennis Rhodes, "Christ: The Life," notices that Roberts, in order to help demonstrate issues concerning Christ, "turns to the Book of Mormon..." and other LDS scriptures "when no biblical reference is available for the point he is trying to make..." (in John W. Welch, Ed., "The Truth, the Way, the Life," BYU Studies Monographs, 1994, p. clv.)

Critics who insist that Roberts lost his faith have yet to deal with the last and final summation of his life's thought - his life's work - his magnum opus, the TWL, and herein we find Roberts affirming time and again the seriousness, and historicity and scriptural status of the Book of Mormon. To ignore this is simply a lazy nonscholarly way of beating a strawman. It may look impressive, yet it fails to refute Roberts and his faith.