This is a replica of the 1830 first edition of the Book of Mormon.
When this book appeared in print it generated some . . . opposition.
Joseph Smith, of course, claimed that he translated the Book of Mormon from a set of ancient golden plates.
The book itself purports to be an ancient record
written by multiple prophets on the ancient American continent.
But for skeptics of Joseph Smith’s claims,
there had to be some other answer for how he produced this 588 page book.
One early critic named Alexander Campbell was confident that
than the Book of Mormon.
Seemed simple enough, right?
Joseph Smith, the ignorant con man, wrote the book himself.
Case closed.
Well, not really.
As Brigham Young University professor Daniel C. Peterson noted,
Because critics couldn’t reconcile the picture of an unlearned Joseph Smith
simply writing the Book of Mormon by himself,
they set off to see
who could come up with a plausible counter-explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon.
The first and most popular counter-explanation came to be known as the Spalding-Rigdon Theory.
According to this theory, Signey Rigdon, an early convert to the restored Church of Jesus Christ,
secretly stole an unpublished manuscript from a man named Solomon Spalding
and gave it to Joseph Smith,
who then palmed off this manuscript with his own additions as the Book of Mormon.
This theory was so popular among critics in Joseph Smith’s day
that it practically became the standard skeptical explanation
for the origins of the Book of Mormon for decades.
The Spalding theory, however, eventually lost favor
when Spalding’s original manuscript was recovered in 1884
and was seen to bear little resemblance to the Book of Mormon.
Historians now consider the “Spalding theory a dead issue”
and “not credible enough to base a theory of Book of Mormon authorship on.”
So if Joseph Smith didn’t steal Solomon Spalding’s manuscript,
then how else might he have produced the Book of Mormon?
Around the turn of the twentieth century,
some scholars began suggesting
that Joseph derived the contents of the Book of Mormon from his own environment.
One book in particular,
View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith (no relation to Joseph),
became a popular candidate as a source of plagiarism or influence on Joseph.
First published in 1823, View of the Hebrews is essentially an extended argument
for why the modern Native Americans
are descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel,
which was already a popular theory in the early nineteenth century.
Some authors have argued for parallels between the content of the Book of Mormon
and View of the Hebrews
which they say show signs of plagiarism.
As with the Spalding Theory, however,
there are some serious problems with the theory that Joseph Smith plagiarized View of the Hebrews.
For one thing,
there’s no direct evidence that Joseph Smith was familiar with the contents
of View of the Hebrews at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon.
In addition, none of Joseph Smith’s contemporary critics ever considered View of the Hebrews
as a potential source of plagiarism,
which is strange if the books are so obviously similar as some have argued.
This would indicate that the supposed parallels between the two sources
aren’t actually as readily obvious as has been suggested.
Finally, Joseph Smith himself, while acting as editor of the newspaper Times and Seasons,
approvingly republished a quotation from View of the Hebrews
as evidence for the Book of Mormon’s authenticity.
This is not the kind of behavior you’d expect from a shrewd con man.
Besides all of this,
other scholars have pointed out significant stylistic and conceptual differences
between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself considers the parallels between the two books
so weak and non-threatening
that its own flagship university, Brigham Young University,
published it’s own edition of View of the Hebrews in 1996 for all to freely examine and compare.
So if Joseph didn’t steal Solomon Spalding’s manuscript or Ethan Smith’s ideas,
what other possible explanations might there be?
Well, in recent years a new theory has emerged
which posits that “Joseph [Smith] most likely grew up reading a school book
called The Late War by Gilbert J. Hunt
and it heavily influenced his writing of The Book of Mormon.”
Published in 1816, The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain
gave an account of the War of 1812 that was intended to be an educational textbook for schoolchildren.
To support the idea that Joseph Smith drew from this book in fabricating the Book of Mormon,
some authors have pointed to parallels between the two books,
including “over 100 rare phrases that bind The Book of Mormon to The Late War.”
But like the Solomon Spalding and Ethan Smith theories,
this explanation suffers from many glaring problems.
As demonstrated by recent statistical analysis,
the “similarities” and linguistic parallels between the Book of Mormon and The Late War
are more easily explainable as shared imitation of the language of the King James Bible,
and not direct literary dependence
Beyond this,
others have pointed out that many of the parallels typically listed between the two books
are actually rather weak.
These problems with the Late War Theory indicate that, in all likelihood,
rather than the Book of Mormon flagrantly plagiarizing Hunt’s work,
the two books emerged alongside eachother
in a shared early American literary culture.
Those who disbelieve Joseph Smith’s claims
will naturally find ways to explain away the miraculous origin of the Book of Mormon.
But it bears repeating the point raised by Apostle John A. Widtsoe in 1951.
“Unbelievers in Joseph Smith’s story have not been able to agree on any one explanation.
It has even been necessary by some writers to change the explanation they first proposed.
This unsuccessful, changing search is of itself an evidence of the truth of the Prophet’s own story.”
Arguments that the Book of Mormon was derived from other nineteenth century book
do not adequately explain its features
for example, its astounding narrative complexity,
literary elegance, profound theology, and authentic ancient characteristics.
Nor do such arguments account for the circumstances of its coming forth,
including its rapid dictation, lack of revisions,
and the testimonies of those who handled the plates and beheld the angel.
The weight of the combined evidence affirms
that the Book of Mormon is unlike any other nineteenth century work,
and is in fact an authentic ancient text.
If any of you are curious to read Solomon Spauldings manuscript,
or Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews, or The Late War,
you can access them for free on the Book of Mormon Central Archive by following the links in the description.