List members may or may not be aware that Mormon scholar and defender
BH Roberts, a one-time general authority who died in 1933, wrote a
study of the Book of Mormon that brought into question 1) whether
Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews published in 1823 and 1825 could
have supplied back ground information that Joseph Smith could have
used to "create" the Book of Mormon and 2) whether Joseph Smith was
sufficiently intelligent and charismatic enough to pull off the task
of writing the Book of Mormon, i.e., it is not what it pur****ts to be
but is a creation of the early 19th century.
The study is quite alarming in that it *appears* to reveal that
Roberts had lost faith in the Book of Mormon, such is the
extraordinary parallels he draws between the two books. However,
Truman Madsen, among others, has argued that Roberts was merely
playing devil's advocate with the study, bringing forth an example of
how critics might attack the book and asking that the Church be
prepared to fight back. The jury is out on whether in fact Roberts
did lose his faith or was just playing devil's advocate. Toward the
end of his life he did continue to bear testimony to the truthfulness
of the book and of JS as a prophet. However, privately, if we are to
believe a friend of his, who wrote an entry in diary describing a
meeting he had with Roberts, he was less forthcoming and spoke of the
Book of Mormon as being "subjective" with JS rather "objective." No
one will ever likely satisfactorily settle the issue.
What I am wonder is whether anyone has taken up the challenge Roberts
posed? That is, whether Roberts lost his faith or not is immaterial
to the study itself. Can it be shown that Smith did NOT use View of
the Hebrews/ Can it be show that he did? What is the evidence one
way or another? Or, how do members of the church who have looked at
this issue defend against the Roberts study? Roberts was a thinking
man and it seems to me folly to simply blow of the study as
unim****tant.
|
