B.H. Roberts "Studies Of The Book Of Mormon" Are His Concerns Valid?

[Tacenda]

http://www.fairlds.o...t-his-testimony

B.H. Roberts’ Own Explanation

B.H. Roberts requested a special conference of the General Authorities of the Church late in 1921 to discuss how the Church would respond to attacks on the Book of Mormon based on ethnological, scientific, historical, anthropological, and philological approaches. Roberts correctly anticipated the future influence of secular humanism and the effect it would have on people’s faith in the historicity of the scriptures, including the Bible. He requested the conference, not because of a crisis of faith, but because he felt that the Brethren needed to be made aware of potential future lines of attack and formulate a response. In his letter requesting the conference, Roberts explained:

I assure you that I am most thoroughly convinced of the necessity of all the brethren herein addressed becoming familiar with these Book of Mormon problems, and finding the answer for them, as it is a matter that will concern the faith of the Youth of the Church now as also in the future, as well as such casual inquirers as may come to us from the outside world.⁵

Ever concerned with how attacks on the Church affect “the faith of the Youth of the Church … as well as such casual inquirers as may come to us from the outside world,” Roberts outlined in “Book of Mormon Difficulties: A Study” the difficulties that modern scientific consensus presents to certain Book of Mormon details. Page after page is spent quoting various authorities ad nauseum to show that modern scientists do not support Book of Mormon migrations, various domesticated animals, the use of iron or steel, or a Middle-Eastern origin for the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere. It is clear that Roberts is simply cataloguing “for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con” what challenges academia will present to the Book of Mormon, and not assenting with their opinions. For example, he quotes John Fiske, a prominent author who dealt with science and religion, in a lengthy excerpt from his The Discovery of America, in which Fiske speaks condescendingly of those who still believe in the “Noachian Deluge.” Fiske describes the Americas as being inhabited “since the earliest Pleistocene times,” and Roberts comments:

It follows, of course, that if North America, as Mr. Fiske observes, ‘has been continuously inhabited by human beings since the earliest Pleistocene times, if not earlier,’ then man has been an inhabitant of North America from a period between 240,000 and 80,000 years ago.⁶

Both pro and anti-Mormons agree that this does not represent B.H. Roberts’ actual beliefs regarding the time frame of North American inhabitation, for he both rejected Darwinism and believed the scriptures to be strictly literal. “240,000 and 80,000 years ago” was far outside the time frame he believed in for the peopling of the world, let alone the Americas. Sterling McMurrin, in his biographical essay in Studies of the Book of Mormon, chides Roberts and the Mormons for their “inability to escape the yoke of a sometimes abject biblical literalism:”

Nevertheless, partly because of the failure by Roberts to appreciate fully the findings of biblical scholarship, the Mormons even today are in general the victims of traditional patterns of biblical thought that often tie them to an outworn and intellectually frustrating scriptural literalism. Despite Roberts’ rather high level of historical and theological sophistication, he failed to distinguish effectively history from myth and legend in the biblical writings, accepting literally such accounts as the Garden of Eden and flood stories of Genesis.⁷

“Book of Mormon Difficulties: A Study” is simply a survey of anthropological, historical, geological, and scientific opinions that conflict with the Book of Mormon account which Roberts sought to bring to the attention of the General Authorities of the Church. He did not assent with them, but he correctly predicted that future attacks on the Church would attempt to make use of such testimony, and he sought to make the presiding authorities aware of them so that the Church would be better prepared to engage them. Roberts no more believed the criticisms of the Book of Mormon he raised than he believed the geological or evolutionary evidence he cited. His point was to highlight these future challenges to the Book of Mormon that would have to be effectively answered and dealt with.

Critics make much of Roberts’ “disappointment” with the results of the conference, but this disappointment wasn’t because “he came to realize he had spent a lifetime defending something which he now knew was a fraud,”⁸ but because to him the Brethren did not have the proper amount of concern over the potential of attacks along those lines. In his letter to President Grant following the conference, Roberts explained:

I just wanted the brethren to know that I was quite disappointed in the results of our conference, but not withstanding I shall be most earnestly alert upon the subject of Book of Mormon difficulties, hoping for the development of new knowledge, and for new light to fall upon what has already been learned, to the vindication of what God has revealed in the Book of Mormon; but I cannot be other than painfully conscious of the fact that our means of defense, should we be vigorously attacked along the lines of [these] questions, are very inadequate.<a href="http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anti-Mormon_Claims_that_BH_Roberts_Lost_His_Testimony.html#en9">⁹

This is not the expression of “abandonment” critics make it out to be. Roberts very presciently sensed that the Church needed to prepare itself to meet attacks “along these lines,” and this likely greatly influenced the work of later scholars such as Hugh Nibley, Sidney B. Sperry, and FARMS. His challenging questions that repeatedly pepper the copious quotations in the study are a challenge for the Brethren, not a frenzied cry for help:

Question...with the passage of time has B.H. Roberts predictions come true? Are the apologetics figuring out the importance of finding the evidence to provide answers for people like myself? How sure are the defenders of the faith, that their evidences are legitimate? Sorry if that is a dumb question.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

I have the John Welch response to it, somewhere, somewhere I know I do.

[CV75]

B.H. Roberts requested a special conference of the General Authorities of the Church late in 1921 to discuss how the Church would respond to attacks on the Book of Mormon

***

Question...with the passage of time has B.H. Roberts predictions come true? Are the apologetics figuring out the importance of finding the evidence to provide answers for people like myself? How sure are the defenders of the faith, that their evidences are legitimate? Sorry if that is a dumb question.

Are there minutes of this conference available to review the reaction to his presentation?

[Kevin Christensen]

The single most important paper on the Roberts study is John Welch's "Answering B. H, Roberts Questions and an Unparallel" from 1985 which you can get from FARMS. It is not the last or only word, but Welch does go through the study point by point. As a survey of modern anthropology and archeology on the Book of Mormon, and even as a close study of the Book of Mormon itself, the 1923 study amounts to a dropping down a scholarly well one person wide and 89 years deep. I've been particularly aggrivated by people like Palmer, George D, Smith, and Brigham Madsen, who have trotted out the study for their own purposes and have made no mentions whatsoever of important and detailed responses to its claims. Roberts is used as the Authority who Braved and Faced the Dreadful Truth Once and For All: Go Thou and Do Likewise and Don't Ask Too Many Questions. Never mind that what in 1923 looked like a deep and forbidding abyss now seems more like a puddle of spilled ink.

I read the Study back in 1985, when the Signature edition was published, and found that it was badlly dated, even then. I had the benefit of having read a lot of Nibley, Sorenson, and dozens of FARMS articles. Roberts reported being annoyed that all the brethren did at the time was bear their testimonies, and I can sympathize. However, with the benefit of having read a great many books and articles that have come in the 89 years since he wrote, it's obvious to me that the brethren were right. They knew they didn't have the necessary information to respond, but that time would take care of it. Brant Gardner commented around 2004 that the information necessary to test the Book of Mormon against the New World context had only been available in the past 30 years, which at that point points back to 1974, the year after Coe's Dialogue article. If Thomas Ferguson's writings on the Book of Mormon (pro and con) have datedly badly, Roberts's study has suffered even more.

For starters, think about the implications of Nibley's work, of the Astons and Wellingtons on the New World context, compared to Roberts shallow comments about the journey from Jerusalem, John W. Welch's essays, and the more recent Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon, including much closer look at Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor. Then we have Sorenson's work on the New World context, supplimented with work by people like Allen Christenson, Diane Wirth, Brant Gardner, Mark Wright, and many many more. It's obvious to me that Roberts would have been impressed and interested, and would have welcomed the new information, even where it showed his readings had been in error.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited July 16, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[rongo]

I am the author of the FAIR paper you started the thread with. I offered some follow-up thoughts you might be interested in here (in the comments section):

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2005/09/bh-roberts-no-he-did-not-lose-his.html

In short, as Kevin wrote above, Roberts *did* respond, in detail, to the points he was addressing in the studies (in his letter to William Riter). His response is pretty good, too ----- and it includes an early LGT apologetic response (1922), which critics insist was just cooked up by FARMS in recent years to deal with these sorts of issues.

[livy111us]

Here is some info from John Welch:

A critical issue is determining when Roberts wrote Studies. This is important because the earlier

that Roberts wrote it, the less evidence there is that he worked on it for a long time as a serious

and troubling project. The editor figures it was an ongoing project for Roberts during his mission

presidency in New York (1922-1927). Newly discovered evidence, however, proves that position

false. This evidence—obvious only on the original documents themselves—shows definitively

that Roberts began the study in January 1922 and finished it (except for a few minor

proofreading changes) before he left for the Eastern States Mission on May 29, 1922.

Consider these points:

1. The first page of Roberts's typescript originally read: "A number of years ago—thirteen years

ago, to be exact—in . . . New Witnesses for God, I discussed . . . ." Since New Witnesses was

published in 1909, thirteen years later was 1922. Roberts says, "thirteen years ago, to be exact."

The newly printed version of the study, however, omits this crucial phrase, apparently because

when Roberts proofread the typescript, he crossed these words out. Still, this telltale phrase

clearly dates the writing of the study to 1922.

2. We can tell that Roberts wrote the study before he knew the date of the first edition of View

of the Hebrews. At that time he had only the second edition and could only speculate that the

first was published around 1820. In five handwritten changes, Roberts later changed "1820" to

"1823." When did Roberts learn of the date of the first edition of View of the Hebrews? From

notes he took in a New York Library, we know he learned this shortly after his arrival in New

York, in June 1922.

3. In a letter from Roberts dated October 24, 1927, to Apostle Richard R. Lyman, Roberts says

he "dropped" the study when his mission call came. On March 14, 1932, Roberts wrote of the

study that it "was from research work I did before going to take charge of the Eastern States

Mission."

All these facts and several other similar points show that one should not view the study as a

long-time project of Roberts while in New York.

Moreover, the record of Roberts's testimony is far from "mixed." His service to the Church from

1922 to his death in 1933 was uninterrupted and unambiguous. He frequently testified of the

truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as an ancient American scripture. He praised its divinity. He

based most of his numerous mission and conference talks on its messages. He wrote in May 1922

of "the tremendous truth" of the Book of Mormon. (B. H. Roberts, "Why Mormonism,'' Tract No.

4 (1922), 60-61.)

He said in 1924 that the Saints build upon the Book of Mormon, "wherein is no darkness or

doubt." (B. H. Roberts, "A New Outlook upon Mormonism,'' Radio Broadcast (1924), 4).

He spoke at general conference, April 1928, of the "hundred more such glorious things that have

come to the world in that book to enlighten the children of men." (Conference Report (April

1928): 112.)

He spoke repeatedly of the historicity of the book. In 1928 he glorified God for the account of

Jesus' visit to the Nephites in Bountiful: "And now, O Lord Jesus, if thou couldst but come into

the consciousness of our souls this day, as thou didst come into the vision of the ancient Nephites

in the Land of Bountiful, we would join their great song of praise and worship,

saying—'Hosanna! Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God!' And we, like them,

would fall down at the feet of Jesus and worship him this Easter day! Amen." (Conference

Report (April 1928, 13.) This does not sound like a person who had lost faith in the Book of

Mormon.

Although Roberts had an "unshaken and unshakable" faith in the Book of Mormon (as he wrote

in a cover letter accompanying Studies), he knew that as a debater and researcher he had asked

questions that might cause some people to wonder about his views. He spoke to this general issue

at October Conference in 1929, saying: "After bearing testimony to the fundamental things of

this work, and my confidence in it, 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." (Conference Report (October 1929): 90; italics added.)

In sum, it seems plain; the evidence is neither "enigmatic" nor "mixed." Rather, it is quite

overwhelming. There is no significant evidence (Wesley Lloyd's diary included) of "late-in-life

doubts." Questions, yes; uncertainty about weak archaeological evidences, yes; but doubts? This

man, who gave fifty-four years of his life in full-time service to his church and to his God,

remained firm and true in his testimony of the antiquity and divinity of the Book of Mormon.

This Update was based on research by John W. Welch, November 1985. An expanded treatment

appeared a few months later, and a summary appeared in John W. Welch, "B. H. Roberts: Seeker

after Truth," Ensign 16 (March 1986): 56-62. That article was reprinted in A Sure Foundation:

Answers to Difficult Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1988), 60-74.

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 conclusions of mine. The report herewith

submitted is what it purports to be, namely a ‘study of Book of Mormon origins,’ for the

information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well as that which has

been produced against it. I do not say my conclusions for they are undrawn. It may be of great

importance since it represents what may be used by some opponent in criticism of the Book of

Mormon. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book

of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it. (Madsen,

ed., B. H. Roberts: Studies of the Book of Mormon, 57-58)

In October 1923 he called the Book of Mormon “the sublimest message ever delivered to the

world.” (Conference Report, October 1923, 92.)

In 1928, after asking if “common knowledge and general discussion in the time and vicinity of

Joseph Smith when the Book of Mormon was undergoing production” would have been enough

to account for the production of the Nephite record, he responded, “Emphatically no.” (B. H.

Roberts, “Master Stroke of Philosophy,” Deseret News, 16 June 1928.)

In November 1930 he asserted that “surer recognition of Jesus being God may not be found in

sacred writ [than in the Book of Mormon].” (Deseret News, 22 November 1930)

Roberts continued to be impressed by the depth and scope of Book of Mormon doctrinal

teachings and thought. Concerning the sacramental prayers in the Book of Mormon, he told the

San Francisco Stake in April 1932 that “this was not the work of an unlettered youth . . . but

evidence of divine inspiration. When this prayer is thoughtfully considered, it gives great weight

to [the] claims of the modern prophet.” (Minutes of the San Francisco Stake Conference, 23-24

April 1932, in Madsen and Welch, “Did B. H. Roberts Lose Faith in the Book of Mormon?” 25-

26.)

In April 1933, he described the Book of Mormon as “one of the most valuable books that has

ever been preserved.” (Conference Report, April 1933, 117.)