Studies of the Book of Mormon

Features

• Cover Type: Paperback with 416 pages
• Published by: Signature Books September 1992
• Written in: English
• ISBN 10 Number: 1560850272
• ISBN 13 Number: 978-1560850274
• Book Dimensions: 9.2 x 6 x 1.2 inches
• Weighs: 1.3 pounds

Reader Reviews
Back in 1979, while working as a manuscript cataloger in the Archives and Manuscript division of the Harold B. Lee Library, I first came across a copy of this manuscript. Someone had donated a photo-copy of the original and I had to evaluate and catalog it for the collection. I discovered that the library already had an excellent copy of the manuscript with associated documents and that the set was already cataloged and available for examination. Instead of tossing the second copy, my boss let me keep it. When "Brig" Madsen published this edition, I was a bit confused. I studied under Dr. Madsen for my BA in History at the U, and I generally liked his approach to Western Americana. Why then, I wondered, did he neglect to include B.H. Roberts' cover letter that accompanied the original manuscript? The cover letter states 1- that the manuscript is not complete and thus not ready for publication, 2- That Roberts is assuming a "Devil's Advocate" position and that the conclusions in the manuscript are not necessarily his own, 3- The manuscript represented what B.H. Roberts felt were the best arguments anti-Mormons could make against the Book of Mormon, therefore they had to be seriously considered so that Mormons could prepare accordingly. The relevance of this work today is really the most curious issue. At the time Roberts put this study together, most Mormons accepted the "continental model" of the Book of Mormon. The only Mormons who advocated a "limited geographical model" seemed to be limited to those who had actually created the "graphical models" based on the text of the Book of Mormon. Since 1984, when the _Ensign_ published several lengthy articles that advocated the "limited geographical model," the continental model seems to be accepted by the fringe or by individuals who (strangely enough) don't even accept the Book of Mormon as anything but fiction. This realignment is significant to the relevance of this Study. Roberts' evidence pounds a stake directly into the heart of the continental model. Once you begin to restrict the geographical area into a small section, his primary arguments collapse. That leaves only the parallel, which was the weakest argument to begin with. Heck, I might as well draw similar parallels between Ben Hur and the Book of Mormon and argue that Lew Wallace drew on Joseph Smith for his little romance. Parallels like this could be significant if one of two things could be shown: 1- the paralleled item was unique only to the Book of Mormon and the View of the Hebrews or 2- the paralleled item could be shown to be unique to the early 19th Century. For over 50 years now, the Mormon apologetic literature has shown over and over and point by point that neither of these conditions hold. That means, since both works are addressing the same subject area, there is going to be a naturally occurring Venn Diagram overlap. Emphasis on the similarities ignores the much more significant differences occurring outside that Venn overlap. Because interest in View of the Hebrews was so high, and because the differences were so readily apparent, for many years the only place one could purchase a copy of "Views" was through BYU Press. I found the Study to be interesting, because it reveals the intellectual integrity of B.H. Roberts. And because I am aware of his post-Study actions, the Study demonstrates that Roberts compartmentalized his faith and the material he understood up to that time. While the LDS church concentrated on celebrating its centennial in 1930, B.H. Roberts (on his own) organized and celebrated in New York State a Book of Mormon centennial in 1929. I've read several oral histories of Mormon missionaries who were in the Eastern States Mission at the time and who observed Roberts and listened to him. His actions and statements don't come across as someone who had "lost their testimony" in the Book of Mormon. In 1926, B.H. Roberts authorized the 2nd Edition publication of New Witnesses for God. The 2nd and 3rd Volumes of that set contained Roberts' detailed analysis of the Book of Mormon. Again hardly the actions of a person who had lost his faith in the Book of Mormon. There is some evidence that as early as 1909, Roberts was toying with a "limited geography" view of the Book of Mormon (see New Witnesses For God 3:502 - 1909 edition). Since this Study was published, there have been many other published studies detailing Roberts public and private statements on the Book of Mormon. In conclusion, I think that the failure to include the cover letter and to include the entire context of Roberts public and private statements reflect poorly on the whole context of this document. However, I am pleased that the Study was published. I will read anything that B.H. Roberts writes. I hope all the other reviewers of this book feel the same. Comments (2) | | (Report this)