Studies of the Book of Mormon
Madsen, Brigham D., and Sterling M. McMurrin. 1992. Studies of the Book of Mormon. Subsequent. Signature Books.
Rating:
4
Introduction:
There is an interesting story behind this book. Brigham H. Roberts, the author, originally wrote it in the 1920s, but because it was not favorable towards the LDS religion and Roberts was a leader in that religion, the book was basically squelched – the upper hierarchy refused to publish it. The manuscript languished in his personal notes for years, with only a few copies circulating. But with a donation of his notes to the University of Utah, his manuscript was re-discovered and has now been published by Signature Books with introductions by Sterling McMurrin and Brigham Madsen. I had heard about it over the years and heard that it basically delved deeply into some of the serious issues surrounding the Book of Mormon. I found a copy of it on the New Mormon Studies CD available from Sunstone and Signature Books.
Summary:
The book consists of three separate essays: “Book of Mormon Difficulties, A Study,” “A Book of Mormon Study,” and “A Parallel.” The first essay focuses on addressing several questions that were passed to B.H. Roberts by a young Mormon who received them from a well-educated individual who was basically pointing out some of the logical inconsistencies of the Book of Mormon. The questions/comments are:
1.How could the great diversity in primitive Indian languages have occurred in such a short period after about A.D. 400, when the Nephites, whose Hebrew language was so highly developed, disappeared?
2.The Book of Mormon reports that the followers of Lehi, upon their arrival in the New World, found horses, which were not in existence when the first Spanish explorers arrived.
3.Although the Jews had no knowledge of steel in 600 B.C., Nephi was reported to have had a bow of steel after he left Jerusalem.
4.The Book of Mormon speaks of “swords and scimeters,” and yet the word “scimeter” does not appear in early literature before the rise of Mohammedanism,which took place after Lehi departed from Jerusalem.
5.Even though silk was not known in America, the Nephites knew of and used silk.
The second essays follows up on those questions, looking at related questions. The final essay touches on the similarities between Ethan Smith’s “View of the Hebrews” and the Book of Mormon, similarities that insinuate that Joseph Smith likely was familiar with Ethan Smith’s work and drew upon it in writing the Book of Mormon.
The essays illustrate that Roberts had finally realized in his later life that these issues were serious concerns when it came to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. While it is not perfectly clear whether Roberts lost his faith in the Book of Mormon or Mormonism more generally, it is clear that he was aware that there were significant problems with the claims of the Book of Mormon and that those problems indicated that at least some of the claims of the book itself and the claimed authorship of the book were highly questionable.
Review:
While I hate to admit it, I think it is almost enough just to know that the questions detailed above could not be answered in the 1920s (and still cannot be answered by Mormon apologists). B.H. Roberts is not a great writer. His approach consists of extensively quoting as many experts on these issues as possible while adding just a little commentary. The result is a very thick text that basically says, “Yep, those are good questions and they are pretty much accurate. Mormons can’t answer them and that means there are some serious problems with the Book of Mormon.” To get there you have to read page after page of lengthy quotes that describe very specific points that are so tangential as to border on irrelevance.
Mind you, this isn’t to say that the book is not necessary. Certainly it is necessary for people to wade through the literature to address these issues. But it could be done much more succinctly. An additional problem with this book, which really should not be considered a fault if you take this book to be primarily a historical text, is the fact that many of the references are outmoded. That doesn’t mean they are wrong, but it does mean that fresher, more informed, and more well-developed perspectives are available today. In short, this is really no longer the authoritative work addressing these issues – more current information is available. And, while that information has not been brought together in one volume, it is out there and should serve as primary source material in place of this book.
In conclusion, while Roberts’s exercise in pedantic reference finding ultimately makes the point that there are many, many issues related to the Book of Mormon that indicate it is a 19th century work of fiction, getting to Roberts’s conclusions takes a Herculean effort and dogged dedication. An enterprising scholar out there should take it upon him/herself to update Roberts’s work in a highly simplified and streamlined fashion. I don’t need thousands of quotes – I just need accurate information and summaries with references. You write that book and I’ll buy it! If you’re looking for that book, then you may want to put off reading this one… It just isn’t worth the effort involved.