Back to Mormonism Researched Page

View of Hebrews/Solomon Spaulding Fail Miserably as Sources For the Book of Mormon

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

For the record, I wash my hands of View of the Hebrews with this response. As you will note, I hope, you can see the obvious.... that the View of the Hebrews as a source for the BofM fails as much as Solomon Spaulding's theory. Can't critics find anything better? The Apocrypha also fails miserably as a source. So this is three issues down,

1) Spaulding; 2) View of the Hebrews; 3) BofM and the apocrypha

What a flattering compliment to Joseph Smith that critics can do no better than these three supposed sources!!! For now here is my firm rebuttal of all your supposed sources for the BofM.

Critics seem to think there is something to the idea that Joseph Smith simply used Ethan Smith's (no relation to the prophet incidentally) *View of the Hebrews* as the ground source of information for the Book of Mormon. This is a refutation of such a claim and a final nail in the coffin of this silly theory.

The main trouble with the theory that the Prophet Joseph Smith stole from Ethan Smith's *View of the Hebrews* (hereafter cited as VH) is as Fawn Brodie, the famous anti-Mormon writer noted "It may never be proved that Joseph Saw "View of the Hebrews" before writing the Book of Mormon." (*No Man Knows My History*, p. 47) If it can never be proved, then its all smoke and mirrors, ribald guessing and desparate attempts at finding something... anything for the BofM other than what Joseph Smith said.

Richard L. Bushman in his text *Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism* noted that it wasn't until Riley's psychological study in 1902 that anyone had thought of linking up the VH and the BofM. (p. 191).

To say that Joseph Smith took the main ideas for the BofM from VH says also that he ought not to contradict it, at least in its main points, since these are the things Smith plagiarized. So how do the two stack up?

VH *does* talk about the destruction of Jerusalem, as does the BofM, so this seems to be an obvious pilfer job, until we realize that VH is talking about the destruction 70 A.D. by the *Romans*. The parallel vanishes since BofM is talking a different time, a different setting, with different political situations, and peoples involved. That this is never noted by critics just demonstrates they are not being too honest with their sources.

VH talks about the specific heavenly signs which marked the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. *Nothing* is found about this in the BofM.

VH talks about many prophecies of the restoration of Israel, such as Deut. 30; Isa. 11, 18, 60, 65; Jeremiah 16, 23, 30-31, 35-37; Zephaniah 3; Amos 9; Hosea and Joel. These are the *essential* scriptures which deal with the logic of VH. The entire theme of VH is based on these. With the sole exception of Isa 11, *none* of them appear in the BofM.

VH tells the people came via the Bering Strait. There is no Bering Strait mentioned in the BofM. This is clearly a totally alien way of people getting here according to the BofM. Smith surely would have used this to persuade people his book was Israelitish had he followed VH.

VH talks about *Hebraisms* which are *proof* in VH's view of the American Indians being Israelites. These particular hebraisms are not in the BofM.

VH mentions the people got here on "dry land" and that as they moved they spread from *north to east* and then to the *south*, all of which are critical since VH uses Amos 8:11-12 which prophesies that the tribes would go from North to East. Population migrations in the BofM, however, travel from *South to the North*.

VH says the word *Hallelujah* is a dead give away that the indians are Israelites. The word is not found in the BofM, which Smith, had he used VH, would have used to ensure his readers that his book was correct in saying the Indians were Israelites.

The indian names in VH surely are Hebrew, such as *Keah*, *Lani*, *Uwoh*, *Phale*, *Kurbet*, etc. These don't have the slightest resemblence to any of the 175 BofM names.

VH says indians are Hebrews because they carry small boxes with them into battle as protection against injury. This proves the indians knew of the Ark of the Covenant, according to VH. How could Smith have passed that up as an oft-attested Hebraism? Yet *nothing* like this is found in the BofM.

VH mentions the legends of Quetzalcoatl hence the indians were Israelitish. But VH tries to prove that Quetzalcoatl is none other than...........MOSES! This is hardly a BofM theme.

On point after point after point the BofM shows its vast *difference* from VH. Why, if Smith used VH as *the source* for the BofM?

Sidney B. Sperry asks some tough questions that critics ought to be aware of.

Where in VH can be found a discussion of the Atonement as distinctive as found in 2 Nephi 9:6-9?

Where in VH can be found a treatment of the doctrine of an opposition in all things and the meaning of the fall such as in 2 Nephi 2:11-25?

How could Joseph Smith have possibly extracted the ideas pertaining to Lehi's dream of the tree, the river, and the rod of iron (1 Ne. 8) from VH?

Where in VH could Smith have gotten the ideas found in Alma 32 pertaining to faith?

Where could he have found material in VH to elaborate on the state of the soul between death and resurrection at Alma 40:11-14?

And is there anything comparable in VH to the dramatic three day ministry of Jesus in 3 Nephi 11-26? Children encircled with flames of fire and things like that.

And I further have to ask:

Where in VH could Smith have gotten the idea of the weird Jaredite barges and the strange shining stones?

Is there anything at all like the Liahona - the round ball-like-compass in VH?

How about the unknown Reformed Egyptian language? Anything similar in

VH?

How about King Benjamin's coronation ritual? Anything in VH like it?

How about Moroni's banner the famed "Title of Liberty"?

How about the BofM title page, or the witnesses to the book?

How about golden plates and the angel taking them back after they were translated with the help of the Urim and Thummim as well as seer stones?

How about the Volkerwanderungszeit - the three different migrations and wandering of the people?

If VH is the source for the BofM, how about all the divergence of material between the two books? Why on earth are they so *dissimilar*?

Ariel Crowley's book *About the Book of Mormon* shows that B.H. Roberts son, Ben E. Roberts, said B.H. Roberts did *not* lose faith in the BofM. B.H. Roberts study on the BofM was *never meant for publication* and of course *was never finished*. This the critics ignore. (p. 132). Crowley, incidentally shows the great differences between VH and the BofM, on pp. 111-133.

Truman Madsen's article "B.H. Roberts After Fifty Years" in "Ensign", December, 1983, pp. 11-19 demonstrates clearly that Roberts didn't lose faith in the BofM, so the critics are simply wrong on this. But then why bother to study the evidence if it refutes you? Just ignore it and claim what you want to. This is how critics deal with the VH issue.

Madison U. Sowell examines the Roberts list of parallels and notes that B.H. Roberts wrote a letter to Richard R. Lyman on Oct. 24, 1927, saying that he wanted to share the parallels with the Quorum of 12 Apostles to prepare the brethren against future problems with the BofM if they arise. *Roberts drew up the parallels in 1927 as a way of *defending* the BofM, *not* refuting it!* Critics have completely missed this point to his BofM studies. (*Defending the Keystone* in "Sunstone", p. 52).

Hugh Nibley has also shown how useless the parallels are between VH and the BofM in his study "The Comparative Method" in "Improvement Era, Oct. 1959. Among other things, he noted that if we find the word *and* in both books as a parallel we would simply laugh. This is on par with the silly parallels the Tanners find between Judith and the BofM. But if we found in VH or in Solomon Spaulding the words Cureloms and Cummoms, *then* we would have some explaining to do! Incidentally these two strange words are *not* in VH or Spaulding. Nibley also notes that one could find at least 75 equally good parallels between the BofM and any other book you can name. You can do this with any two books, but that hardly proves one was dependent on the other. Now, I personally have done just this to see if it could be done. I give you the results.

I've been making my way through some of the Norse sagas in the past few years, and a whopper is Snorri Sturluson's *Heimskringla: History of the Kings of Norway* which was written in the 13th century (Translated by Lee M. Hollander, Univ. of Texas Press, 1st paperback, 1991 - page numbers from this edition) so clearly, Joseph Smith *could* have had access to this as a source for the BofM as well. Consider the following almost perfect parallels.

Heimskringla - opens with a discussion of the "Great Seas", p. 6.

BofM - talks about the "many waters" in numerous places.

Heimskringla - Othin had "two Brothers", p. 7

BofM - Nephi deals mainly with his "two brothers", Laman and Lemuel.

Keimskringla - The armies are called "bands", p. 820, and "robbers", p. 521.

BofM - Had Gaddianton "bands" and "robbers".

Heimskringla - homesteads of people were destroyed by sword and fire, p. 670

BofM - Many homes were destroyed by war.

Heimskringla - chieftains send out spies against their enemies, p. 488

BofM - Alma constantly mentions this in their wars.

Heimskringla - the people in their battles use much timber, p. 440

BofM - Timber was so overused that it became scarce, esp.

in Helaman.

Heimskringla - religious discussions of baptism, p. 390

BofM - same thing throughout in MANY places.

Heimskringla - There is journeyings to the boundaries of the land, p. 542

BofM - talks about the borders of the wilderness.

Heimskringla - King's armies had banners they took with them into war, p. 652, 502

BofM - General Moroni's armies also had their banners they used.

Heimskringla - Had famines, p. 45

BofM had famines especially in Helaman

Heimskringla - Constant talk of sailing, pp. 443, 67, 11, etc.

BofM - Hagoth sailed away also and was never heard of again.

Heimskringla - All the army was slaughtered except one man, p. 466

BofM - talks about the great slaughter with only one man surviving.

Heimskringla - Brusi's sone was "handsome", "tall", & "strong", p. 361

BofM - Nephi was "large of stature" 1 Ne. 4:31

Heimskringla - Kings received tribute from Subjected people, p. 13

BofM - Mosiah 7, 19, 22; King Noah did the same thing.

Heimskringla - Kings call assemblies, p. 460

BofM - King Benjamin and his asembly - same thing

Heimskringla - people get drunk and fall asleep, p. 355

BofM - there is an episode of the Lamanited doing the same thing.

Heimskringla - great storms and hailstones, p. 181

BofM - 3 Ne. destruction at Crucifixion of Jesus

Heimskringla - Armies used spears and swords in battle, p. 121

BofM - also had armies using these same weapons

Heimskringla - After one battle, King Knut saw he lost no men, p. 442

BofM - 2,000 stripling warriors fought without a loss.

Heimskringla - large armies are mentioned

BofM - same thing - large armies in Ether, Mormon, etc.

Heimskringla - King Olaf had holy visions. p. 496

BofM - Lehi and Nephi's visions

Heimskringla - People are taught of Christ and are baptized, p. 504

BofM - Alma church in the wilderness and 3 Ne.

Heimskringla - Kings station armies on hills, p. 511

BofM - Ether 15:11, armies gather on hills

Heimskringla - talk of smooth talkers, p. 10

BofM - Korihor, Amalikiah, Sherem, etc., are smooth talkers

Heimskringla - The king had a council of twelve, p. 11

BofM - Christ organizes a council of twelve in 3 Ne.

Among other things there are exact quotes and near quotes

between the two books!

Heimskringla - "they went up", p. 615

BofM - "They went up" Alma 3:23

Heimskringla - "they gave battle", p. 649

BofM - "gave him battle" Ether 13:29

Heimskringla - "long arm extends", p. 6

BofM - "extends his arm" Mosiah 1:4

Heimskringla - "would lay his hands on their heads", p. 7

BofM - "laying on his hands" Alma 6:1

Heimskringla - "defended their land", p. 7

BofM - "defend our country" Alma 56:6

Heimskringla - "taking possession of their lands", p. 63

BofM - "take possession of the lands" Alma 43:22, 3 Ne. 4:1

Heimskringla - "it was the custom", p. 91

BofM - "it was the custom" 3 Ne. 3:19

Heimskringla - "the sons of", p. 129

BofM - "the sons of" Moroni 7:48

Heimskringla - "Now that it has come to pass", p. 310

BofM "And it came to pass" - THOUSANDS of times

Heimskringla - "a great multitude has gathered" p. 503

BofM - "a great multitude gathered" 3 Ne. 11:1

Heimskringla - "hurled javelins", p. 535

BofM - "did cast a javelin" Alma 63:36

One can find innumerable parallels between *Heimskringla* and the BofM, but what would it prove? That Smith *also* used this book as a source? All you have to do to see how utterly ludicrous this idea is is read the two books! The only other two books which are so different is *View of the Hebrews* and the BofM! Finding just *any* book and saying it was the source for the BofM disregards the first rule of textual criticism, namely, finding literature from the *same* time and place that said text (BofM) claims to have come from. This is why Zeitlin made such howling mistakes with the Dead Sea Scrolls, even claiming they were a plant, or just gibberish which no one could read. He said they were medieval forgeries and completely worthless. Had he followed the rules of textual criticism he wouldn't have run into such difficulties. The same applies to critics of the BofM. The BofM claims to have come from Jerusalem, in the Old World, during 600 B.C. That is the place to start looking for literature to see if there are any similarities to the BofM. As luck would have it, there is plenty, and the literature shows the BofM is an ancient genre of literature from around 600 B.C.

The Tanner's parallels between Judith and the BofM are clearly as ludicrous as these I have found between *Heimskringla* and the BofM. I am willing to bet I can find as many parallels between James Joyce's *Finnegans Wake* and the BofM. So what?

The Tanners note that there are exact phrasings between the two:

The name Laban appears in both BofM and Judith. So what? Did Smith have to go to Judith to find this? Laban is also in the Bible, and it is *this* Laban Judith is talking about, not the Laban in the BofM. The two are simply not the same. Why would Smith have to go to the Apocrypha for this when the Bible would have been the logical source. The Tanners are just desparate with this one.

Tanners note:

In both cases the people feared destruction.

So What? In Heimskringla and BofM there are battles where the whole earth was strewn around with dead people! BofM calls the land the land of desolation. Is this parallel any less than the Tanners?

Tanners Note:

"in the records" 1 Ne. 13:40

"in the records" 2 Maccabees 2:1

But is this any more significant than the parallels I found in Heimskringla?

"they went up", Heimskringla, p. 630

"they went up" Alma 3:23

So what is the big deal here? One can find numerous parallels if one is determined enough, but are they significant? Hardly. They tell us rather about the ingenious determination of authors finding these parallels. Tanners show more of the same:

"diligence unto" 2 Ne. 29:4

"diligence unto" 2 Esdras 13:54

"left gold and silver" 1 Ne. 3:16

"left her gold and silver" Judith 8:7

But I find stronger parallels than the Tanners do...

Heimskringla mentions a DREAM with WATER, a TREE, and MISTS OF DARKNESS, p. 706.

BofM dream of Nephi has many of the same elements.

This is *nowhere* in the Bible, or Judith is it??? How many dreams like this, with their explanation are found in VH? Do we *have* to conclude then that Smith got this from Heimskringla??? Following the silly logic of the Tanners we would.

Heimskringla mentions *fortified cities*, p. 582

BofM also has these, Alma 55:26

Heimskringla mentions strongholds of war, p. 583

BofM has the same, Helaman 1:27.

Or what about the very interesting parallel in *Plutarch's Lives* wherein we read: "At first they only pelted one another with clods of earth, but presently took to their fists..." (*Plutarch's Lives*, trans., John Dryden,Modern Library, p. 823).

We read the *same thing* in Alma 1:22, "...there were many among them who began to be proud, and began to contend warmly with their adversaries, even unto blows; yea, they would smite one another with their fists." This parallel is every bit as good as any the Tanners have come up with, but must we conclude that Smith industriously read through Plutarch until at page 823 he found this and put it in the BofM??? Can it be demonstrated that Smith had and used these sources? Do critics realize the difficulty this puts them in. Now they have to show us that Smith was so adroit as to include all this fabulous detail in a book that NONE of Smith's contemporaries thought Smith capable of doing! In other words, whence the ultra-intelligence of Smith? Can it be demonstrated he had such mental prowess? And what sources say this? *None* from Smith's acquaintances. But then the critics *must* ignore evidence that kills their thesis, otherwise they have to end up accepting Joseph Smith's view, and that just isn't tolerated apparently. So much for objectively trying to figure out the truth.

How about exact phrases? Can it be demonstrated that my exact phrases I have found is any weaker than the Tanner's? Are the Tanner's parallels any better than mine?

"bordering on the sea" - Plutarch's Lives, p. 464

"bordering upon the seashore" - Alma 31:3

Similar ideas?

Plutarch's Lives, p. 494 we find that a son had the same name as his father.

BofM - Alma is named after Alma; Nephi (later) is named after Nephi.

Plutarch's Lives, p. 959 - we read that Cato fought for his country's liberty.

General Moroni also fights for their liberty - Alma 46.

Or how about the parallel in the *Hermetica* where we read that Hermes, knowing the mysteries of God, hid that knowledge on inscribed tablets, leaving the larger part untold, until later generations would seek it. Hermes did not transmit the full knowledge of doctrine, but taught it by degrees (line upon line as we Mormons would note). *Hermetica*, trans., Walter Scott, Shambala, 1993, pp. 459-461. This is an astonishing parallel with Alma 12:9-12 where Alma knows the mysteries but notes that not all of them can be divulged. In fact, the greater part of the mysteries as well as the BofM itself is inscribed on tablets and hidden (the 2/3 for instance) for later generations to have! But does this mean we have to posit that Smith obviously analyzed the Hermetica and pulled this item out of here and integrated it into the BofM??? When?, How? From what library in a village of only 15 log homes?

Heimskringla has more parallels by far with the BofM than the Tanners muster up through the apocrypha. Does that mean Smith took from Heimskringla rather than the apocrypha? Lets grant for the sake of argument, that Smith *did* get the name Laban and Nephi from the apocrypha. But what about the other 200 names that *aren't* in the apocrypha or Bible, but *are* authentic ancient names? What are we to do with these? Critics ignore them, of course, since they don't fit in with their theory, but that doesn't make them any less ancient or authentic.

See also the new, devastating rebuttal to the Tanner's booklet, Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha" by John A. Tvedtnes, Matthew Roper, in FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 8, 1996, pp. 326-372.

For instance, where in VH and Solomon Spaulding are the names:

Pahoran, Paanchi, Pacumeni, Giddonah, Aminidab, Ammonihah, Cezoram, Giddianhi, Hem, Alma, Himni, Korihor, Morianton, Seezoram, Zenoch, Helaman, Lachoneus

Yet everyone of these names are attested in literature dealing with the ancient milieus of ancient civilizations (Hugh Nibley, *Lehi in the Desert*, pp. 27-34)

My whole point, in case you miss it, is that parallels are significant IF.... IF they come from two literatures which come from the *same time* and *place*. Then we can see if the genre's are similar or not. That is why the Lachish Letters, the Bar Kochba documents, the Ras Shamra texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Mari letters are so important to see if there are parallels with the BofM. If there are, then we have to acknowledge that the BofM fits in an ancient setting, which it certainly *does*. *This* the critics have refused to do. Instead they wander around with VH or the long discredited Spaulding theory. Incidentally, one of the anti-Mormons favorite sources, Fawn Brodie, in "No Man Knows My History" is the person who ***BURIED and DESTROYED*** the Solomon Spaulding theory. Jim Spencer in his dull moments in his book (i.e., the entire book) "Have You Witnessed to a Mormon Lately?" shows us he has yet to seriously come up to date either, as he uses and believes that Spaulding was the source for the BofM, as well as lamely accepting Cowdery and Scales views, which the Browns in their book "They Lie in Wait To Deceive" have thoroughly trashed, such as the ridiculous idea that this Wayne Cowdery is a descendant of Oliver Cowdery, one of the three witnesses to the BofM. Who doesn't know by now that Oliver Cowdery had no living descendants??? But critics myopically go on claiming outdated, ill-gotten, and deceiving information as if we Mormons wouldn't ever bother to check into their arguments. Oh well...Why ignore Brodie's research here? Because it doesn't fit your theory?

But more to the point, critics never, ever cite the relevant literature, since, of course, it refutes them! To keep bringing up Spaulding is simply ridiculous.

Dan Vogel, who is not exactly sympathetic to Mormonism you know, shows that Fawn Brodie "delivered the fatal blow to the Spaulding theory..." (Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon, Signature Books, 1986, p. 4).

Robert N. Hullinger noted that Orasmus Turner, one of Joseph Smith's contemporaries who also opposed Joseph Smith, "...specifically dismissed the Spaulding theory." (Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism, Signature Books, 1992, p. 13).

Brigham D. Madsen specifically demonstrates that B.H. Roberts refuted the Spaulding Theory in his own day around the turn of the century. (Brigham D. Madsen, ed., B.H. Roberts Studies of the Book of Mormon, Univ. of Illinois Press, 1985, pp. 9-11.)

B.H. Roberts also clearly refuted the Spaulding Theory in A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, BYU Press, 1965, vol. 1, pp. 221, 229-238.

John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith: Seeker After Truth Prophet of God, Deseret Book, 1951, pp. 83-89 demonstrates the Spaulding Theory is all smoke and mirrors.

Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Reuben Miller: Recorder of Oliver Cowdery's Reaffirmations" in BYU Studies, 8 (Spring 1968): 277-93, shows that Oliver Cowdery specifically refuted tha the Book of Mormon was taken from Solomon Spaulding, because Cowdery himself was the main transcriber of the Book of Mormon! Of course! Cowdery gave his reaffirmation at Council Bluffs in 1848.

Bruce D. Blumell, refuted both View of the Hebrews, Solomon Spaulding Manuscript as the original documents of the Book of Mormon in Ensign, 6 (Sept. 1976): 84-87.

Lester E. Bush, Jr., "The Spaulding Theory Then and Now," in Dialogue 10 (Autumn 1977): 40-69 presented a scholarly view of the Spaulding theory, wherein he demonstrates the serious problems with the theory, as well as the evidence.

Lance D. Chase, "Spaulding Manuscript," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 3, pp. 1402-3 shows that the Spaulding Manuscript was found and is nothing like the Book of Mormon.

Dean C. Jesse, "Solomon Spaulding and the Book of Mormon, in The First Annual CES Religious Symposium: LDS Church History, 1977, pp. 57-68 demonstrated that the Spaulding Theory is untenable.

James B. Allen and Glen M Leonard, The Story of the Latter Day Saints, Deseret Book, 1976, contend that the Spaulding theory was refuted early on, "even by anti-Mormon writers." (p. 71).

Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience, Vintage Books, 1980, p. 15, note that "The Spaulding-Rigdon theory of the book's origin is based on a number of very superficial similarities between the two works, and modern textual analysis does not substantiate the theory."

Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, Univ. of Illinois Press, 1988, pp. 126f, 131, refutes the Spaulding Theory.

John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, Deseret/FARMS, 1992, pp. 221-226 shows wordprint analysis demonstrates Spaulding is nowhere close to an author or influence for the Book of Mormon.

Daniel C. Peterson, "Notes on Gadianton Masonry," in Stephen D. Ricks, William J. Hamblin, eds., Warfare in the Book of Mormon, Deseret/FARMS, 1990, pp. 174-177, 213f, refutes the Spaulding Theory.

Louis Midgley, "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?" in Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, FARMS, 1997, pp. 112ff summarizes various attempts at resurrecting the Spaulding Theory, but to no avail, as Fawn Brodie herself destroyed it.

So, as with View of the Hebrews, so the Solomon Spaulding Theory continues to be used, against all the evidence, because critics are bankrupt to find the source for the Book of Mormon. These two sources simply fail on analysis of the evidence, which critics, apparently, refuse to do.