Conference tecrus::mormonism

153.0. "B. H. Roberts & Book of Mormon" by CACHE::LEIGH () Tue Aug 02 1988 09:22

New [1985] B. H. Roberts book lacks insight of his testimony

B. H. Roberts: Studies of the Book of Mormon, University of Illinois
Press, 1985, $21.95

Review by John W. Welch
Church News, December 15, 1985, p. 11

This book prints, for the first time, three papers written by B. H. Roberts,
who served valiantly from 1888 to 1933 in the First Council of Seventy.  In
these particular papers, Roberts lists all the arguments he can muster against
the Book of Mormon.  He he makes no real effort to articulate answers, only
to ask questions.

The papers have been edited by three professors at the University of Utah,
Brigham D. Madsen, Sterling McMurrin and Everett Cooley.  Historians will
find it useful to have a bound version of these Roberts papers, which were
donated to the University of Utah in 1979 by Roberts family members.

The Roberts papers themselves are unusual.  He did not prepare or intend
them for publication.  They are not self-explanatory.  Such papers always
call for a careful, complete and accurate presentation.  Unfortunately, the
introductory essays in this book do not do this.

As a result, one editor concludes that the record is mixed on whether Roberts
believed in the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient text.  That conclusion
was drawn, however, without benefit of a complete record.  It also confuses
an important distinction: It is one thing to doubt (as Roberts properly did)
one's ability to prove scientifically that the Book of Mormon is the
translation of an ancient text; it is quite another thing to doubt the book
itself.

The editors also offer little analysis of the Book of Mormon questions
themselves and make no effort to bring the reader up-to-date.  They considered
those tasks beyond the scope of their volume, although a fair description
of the sources available to Roberts in 1922 is given.

The Roberts materials in this book are divided into four sections,
"Correspondence," "Book of Mormon Difficulties," "A Book of Mormon Study,"
and "A Parallel."

In the correspondence section are several letters relating to B. H. Roberts'
1921 and 1922 Book of Mormon projects.  If the editors intended, in printing
these letters, to put the Roberts Book of Mormon studies into context, they
fail on many counts, especially because the collection is incomplete.  The
editors also disregard Roberts' own words when they draw their conclusions.

An example of disregarding Roberts' words is Sterling McMurrin, who writes
repeatedly of Roberts' "conclusions" in these Book of Mormon studies.  Roberts,
however, wrote, "I do not say my conclusions, for they are undrawn....Let me
say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated
explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusion
of mine."

The volume contains several interesting letters that show that Roberts found
"the difficulties" in providing archaeological answers "to be more serious"
than he had expected.  Knowing of his struggle with these academic
disappointments helps us to appreciate even more the faith of this great man.

The volume would have presented a more complete picture of Roberts' faith,
however, if it had quoted the more than 50 other positive, faithful,
unambiguous, published statements made by Roberts in support of the antiquity
and veracity of the Book of Mormon after he wrote the study.  For example,
"Surer recognition of Jesus being God may not be found in sacred writ," he
wrote of the Book of Mormon in 1930.  It is "one of the most valuable books
that has ever been preserved," he spoke in 1933.

The "Book of Mormon Difficulties" section is comprised of a 145-page paper
written by Roberts in December 1921.  This paper was the product of a Church
committee assignment.  It was submitted to the First Presidency and the Quorum
of the Twelve, who discussed it in January 1922.  It reports the problems
Roberts encountered as he tried to answer some archaeological questions about
the Book of Mormon.  Roberts correctly learned that it is impossible to "prove"
the Book of Mormon by archaeology.

The editors correctly characterize Roberts as the "lightning rod" for the
Church, who was often asked to respond to questions about the pre-Columbian
archaeology.  He did not always have answers at his disposal.  Today, while
we still cannot answer all questions, there is evidence bearing on most of
the questions Roberts faced.

For example, Roberts found no evidence of barley (mentioned in Mosiah 9:9) in
America before Columbus; such samples have since been found.  See "Finding
Answers to B. H. Roberts' Questions and an Unparallel," and "Did B. H.
Roberts Lose Faith in the Book of Mormon?" available from F.A.R.M.S. (PO box
7113, University Station, Provo, UT 84602).  The most significant thing today
about these 1922 Roberts papers is the way they can be used to show how far
some Book of Mormon studies have come since his day.

The main body of the book is the "Book of Mormon Study."  The editors make a
clear mistake about the time when this study was written.  This mistake puts
the writing out of context.  The editors also do not put the study very well
into its stylistic context.  They underestimate Roberts' personal love of
debate and his deep belief that knowledge was improved by vigorous debate.

Brigham Madsen claims the study was written by Roberts in his spare time while
serving as president of the Eastern States Mission, and that it was completed
"by the time he left New York" in 1927.  This idea, however, has no historical
support.  In fact, the first line of the first page of Roberts' original
typescript dates the writing of the study to 1922, as the editors now
acknowledge.

Knowing that Roberts wrote the study in 1922 changes one's assessment of it.
Roberts' further research and many faithful statements about the Book of
Mormon from 1922 to his death in 1933 affirm his faith in the Book of
Mormon.

In his study, Roberts bluntly states two main problems.  First, he questions
passages in the Book of Mormon that are arguably absurd or erroneous.  On
closer examination, however, we can see today that few of these oddities are
problematic.  In fact, many end up strengthening the credibility of the Book
of Mormon.  For example, Roberts thought someone might argue that it was
impossible for Captain Moroni to have waved a "rent" (Alma 46:19, 1st ed.) in
the air.  In Hebrew, however, that expression is perfectly acceptable.

Second, Roberts displays at great length many purported similarities
between the Book of Mormon and several early 19th century materials, especially 
the second edition (1825) of a book published in Vermont, Ethan Smith's 'View
of the Hebrews' (VH).  That book argues that the American Indians were
descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes, a common theory widely believed for
centuries, a theory which Roberts in 1932 affirmed "is not the Book of Mormon
attitude."

Most of the suggested similarities between VH and the Book of Mormon, however,
are not so precise or significant as they appear at first glance.  In fact,
recent studies show that the Book of Mormon differs from and contradicts
VH far more often than it resembles it.  This makes it hard to believe that
Joseph Smith specifically relied on VH to any significant extent.  In the
face of these differences, the similarities pale.

Perhaps most importantly, the editors fail to point out that the Book of Mormon
study was Roberts' collection of "cons."  He thought defenders of the faith
should know the arguments against the Book of Mormon so they could work on
reasonable answers.  He said that he "most humbly prayed" and "most anxiously
awaited "those answers."  He ends most sections in the study with questions,
often challenging questions.  Rarely, however, does he state a specific 
conclusion.  Never does he draw a general conclusion.

Most readers of the book will not know that Roberts raises many arguments in the
study that he had answered before.  He has not rejected his earlier arguments.
For example, he had already in 1909 adequately answered the question about
how a small group of Nephites could build a temple "like" Solomon's.

Nor will readers know from this book that Roberts raises questions he continues
to answer later.  The study of the Book of Mormon was an ongoing inquiry for
Roberts, not a settled issue.  For example, regarding the question of whether
Joseph Smith's powers of imagination and creativity were sufficient to have
written the Book of Mormon, Roberts regularly preached in the 1930's that the
inspired and perfect sacramental prayers are evidence that the book was not
written by Joseph Smith.

On the suggestion that the doctrine of "opposition in all things" came from
'View of the Hebrews', he said "emphatically no" in 1928.  The failure to
include information like this is another dimension many readers will find
lacking in this book.

One should remember that the Book of Mormon will probably never be an open and
shut case intellectually.  Few people have ever sensed this fact more keenly
than B. H. Roberts.  His faith was "not only unshaken but unshakable in the
Book of Mormon," as he said.

Roberts knew that some of his words or actions might cause some people to
wonder about his beliefs.  Perhaps this is why he said in October conference
of 1929: "I hope that if anywhere along the line I have caused any of you to
doubt my faith in this work, then let this testimony and my indicated life's
work be a correction of it."

Roberts, a man of great faith and testimony, was a believer in the Book of
Mormon in the face of all that he or anyone else could say against it.  But
to realize this fact, readers will have to look largely outside the covers
of this book.

*Welch is [1985] a professor of law at BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School.  He
has a B.A. degree in history, M.A. in Greek, J.D. in law, and studied Greek
philosophy for two years at Oxford University as a Woodrow Wilson Fellow.