Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Studies of the Book of Mormon/A Book of Mormon Study/View of the Hebrews as ground plan

< Criticism of Mormonism‎ | Books‎ | Studies of the Book of Mormon‎ | A Book of Mormon Study

Revision as of 22:31, 8 August 2017 by RogerNicholson (talk | contribs) (Response to hypothesis: 170 - The first chapter of View of the Hebrews talks of the destruction of Jerusalem and scattering of Israel)

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to "View of the Hebrews as ground plan"



A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books, a work by author: B.H. Roberts, edited by Brigham D. Madsen

Response to "View of the Hebrews as ground plan"


Jump to details:


Response to hypothesis: 170 - The first chapter of View of the Hebrews talks of the destruction of Jerusalem and scattering of Israel

The author(s) of A Book of Mormon Study present(s) the following hypothesis:

The first chapter of View of the Hebrews talks of the destruction of Jerusalem and scattering of Israel. The first chapter of the Book of Mormon also discusses the impending destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel.

FairMormon Response

Question: Could Joseph Smith have used Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews as a guideline for creating the Book of Mormon?

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #502: Is the Book of Mormon Like Any Other Nineteenth Century Book? (Video)

Criticisms related to View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon

  • It is claimed that a 19th century work by Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews, provided source material for Joseph Smith's construction of the Book of Mormon.
  • Some also postulate a link between Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery, since both men lived in Poultney, Vermont while Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended at the time that View of the Hebrews was being written.

Many of the criticisms proposed are based upon B. H. Roberts' list of parallels, which only had validity if one applied a hemispheric geography model to the Book of Mormon

The View of the Hebrews theory is yet another attempt to fit a secular origin to the Book of Mormon. Many of the criticisms proposed are based upon B. H. Roberts' list of parallels, which only had validity if one applied a hemispheric geography model to the Book of Mormon. There are a significant number of differences between the two books, which are easily discovered upon reading Ethan Smith's work. Many points that Ethan Smith thought were important are not mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon, and many of the "parallels" are no longer valid based upon current scholarship.[1]

Advocates of the Ethan Smith theory must also explain why Joseph, the ostensible forger, had the chutzpah to point out the source of his forgery. They must also explain why, if Joseph found this evidence so compelling, he did not exploit it for use in the Book of Mormon text itself, since the Book of Mormon contains no reference to the many "unparallels" that Ethan assured his readers virtually guaranteed a Hebrew connection to the Amerindians.


Response to hypothesis: 173 - Both View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon extensively quote Isaiah

The author(s) of A Book of Mormon Study present(s) the following hypothesis:

Both View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon extensively quote Isaiah. The Book of Mormon quotes 21 chapters of Isaiah, and View of the Hebrews quotes from twenty chapters of Isaiah.

FairMormon Response

Question: What did B.H. Roberts say about View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon?

Response to hypothesis: 73 - Many of the Isaiah chapters quoted in View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon are the same

The author(s) of A Book of Mormon Study Many of the Isaiah chapters quoted in View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon are the same. present(s) the following hypothesis:

{{{claim}}}

FairMormon Response

Question: What are the similarities and differences between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon?
  1. John W. Welch, "View of the Hebrews: 'An Unparallel'," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992), 83–87.