TBA friend countered one of my BOM authorship arguments by saying that author Smith (no relation to JS) was "derived" from ancient documents and that the "View of Hebrews" actually corroborates the BOM!!

He left me speechless when he said he got that information from a book by Arza Evan's book "Keystone of Mormonism!"

I tried to Google this and got nothing. I have never heard this argument before and cannot BELIEVE anything of the sort would be in Arza's material.

Help!

HI, Anagrammy! I am actually right this minute reading "No Man Knows My History", a biography of Joseph Smith by Fawn Brodie. On page 46 she says, "Joseph's familiarity with the theory of the Hebraic origin of the Indians seems, however, to have come chiefly from a popular book by Ethan Smith, pastor of a church in Poultney, Vermont. This book, VIEW OF THE HEBREWS; OR THE TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL IN AMERICA, was published in 1823, a second edition in 1825."
Later, it says, "Ethan Smith's theory of the origin of the Indian mounds was exactly the same as that which formed the heart of the Book of Mormon story...'Israel brought into this new continent a considerable degree of civilization; and the better part of them long laboured to maintain it. But others fell into the hunting and consequently savage state; whose barbarous hordes invaded their more civilized brethren, and eventually annihilated most of them, and all in these northern regions!'
Fawn Brodie makes many references to View of the Hebrews in her book. Does it comfort you to know that View of the Hebrews was published first?

Joseph Smith built the story of the Book of Mormon on prevalent theories about American prehistory - prevalent in his days, that is. The idea that the old Indian mounds in and about the Ohio valler were remains of an ancient civilization that had been eradicated by "wild" Indians, was a commonplace in Smith's days. That was what almost everybody thought. Joseph didn't have to pick it up from Ethan Smith, Joseph would have heard of the supposed, vanished "Mound Builders" long before Ethan's book was published.

But that Ethan Smith confirms the BoM? Actually, according to Ethan the Hebrew ancestors of the Indians came to America over land across the Bering Strait.

But even if Joseph did not get the idea that Indians were Hebrews from Ethan, Joseph probably got the idea of the restoration of Israel from Ethan's "View of the Hebrews".

If you want to read "View of the Hebrews": http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/voh.pdf . Warning, it's boring!

Here are some links to information on the "Mound Builders", what archaeologists know about them now and what people believed about them in Joseph Smith's days:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior:Ancient_Civilizations/Mound_Builders , http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-53420384.html , http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0834239.html , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_builder_%28people%29 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

The factual evidence supports Ethan rather than Joseph.
Beiring Strait seems to have been proven by DNA etc and his book was published before the BOM was 'translated'.

In a Boxing Ring the Mormmons 'second' would be throwing the towel in...

Thanks for the information, ipseego

Ethan Smith was the Cowdery family pastor and his book (1823 and 1825 versions) were known in JS's world. It's funny that your friend claims that VotH got it's info from ancient sources and implies that it was accurate in it's assumptions. Most LDS try to say that the 2 books (VotH and BoM have zero in common).

Some seeing the writing on the wall have perhaps abandoned that approach. BH Roberts comparison of the 2 books is pretty eye opening as well.

The view that the Native Americans were of Israelite origin— lost tribes in the case of VotH— was common in JSs day. Fact is, the VotH was only one of many books that talked about the idea.

It was a 19th century idea though that has virtually been dropped except by people like LDS who have a vested interest in keeping the theory alive.

mistook the Hill Cumorah for a burial mound like those common to the area. This would explain all the stories about buried gold plates and chambers in the hill w/ gold and swords and records etc.

From what I have read though he hill however is a drumlin and not man-made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drumlin

Correct, the Hill Cumorah is a Drumlin.

That's right the Hill Cumorah is a Dumlie..

I think you would find the book, "Keystone to Mormonism" very enlightening. The Author, Arza Evan's is a friend of mine. The book is hard hitting against the church. If your friend has read it and not got the message about what a load of crap the church is, there is nothing more you could say to help him.

Do not try to teach a pig to sing... JMHO

and which "ancient documents" might those be?

http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/page/372

haven't read the book but looks interesting



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2010 11:27AM by jw the inquizzinator.