Talk:View of the Hebrews

Addition of references

Thx for the references :) --Trödel 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. You helped improve the article.--John Foxe 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Categorization of "View of the Hebrews"

There seems to be some attempt here to categorize "View of the Hebrews" as an anti-Mormon work. It cannot be categorized in this manner since it was published prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon. Although it is referenced by church critics, there is nothing anti-Mormon about the book itself. In fact, Brigham Young University's Religious Studies Center republished the book in 1999 in order to make it more accessible to those who wish to evaluate these claims for themselves. In addition to listing the B.H. Roberts info regarding parallels, it would be good to list some of the points which are significantly different between the two books (e.g. Ethan Smith's assumption that Quetzocoatal was Moses, whereas the Book of Mormon describes the visit of Jesus Christ).Bochica 15:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

One possible source for the BoM

The following sentence is incorrect: "Numerous commentators on Mormon doctrine, from LDS Church Authority B. H. Roberts to Joseph Smith biographer Fawn M. Brodie have since considered View of the Hebrews as one possible source for the Book of Mormon..." Nowhere in Robert's work did he express the opinion that it was "one source for the Book of Mormon." What he did do was list parallels which could be used by critics to imply that VotH was the source for the BoM. Writing the sentence in this manner supports a particular POV with the implication that Roberts "lost his testimony" of the Book of Mormon (a different and very debatable topic as well). My suggestion would be to simply rewrite the sentence as "Numerous commentators on Mormon doctrine have considered View of the Hebrews as one possible source for the Book of Mormon," which is a fact and achieves NPOV. Bochica 00:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the citation to Roberts, who was indeed disheartened by the similarities between the books. There's nothing said here about Robert's losing his testimony. But Roberts thought that the Smiths had read or at least knew of the book and that it provided basic structural framework on which the BoM hangs.--John Foxe 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The citation is Grant Palmer's reiteration of the theme I mentioned above. What I'm looking for is an original source statement from B.H. Roberts - one in which Roberts himself makes this claim. The sentence as it is currently constructed does not convey fact, but instead presents Palmer's speculation regarding Roberts as fact. The same is true for the last statement that you made in your comment. I'd like an original source with Roberts' words in which he himself states that he believed "that it provided basic structural framework on which the the BoM hangs." Roberts presented this scenario to church authorities as a possible means by which attacks against the book could be made at a later time, but the statements made here clearly imply that these statements reflected his personal beliefs. Bochica 16:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a circumstantial case for sure, but none the less real for all that. Roberts says, "It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith's story of the Book of Mormon's origin." (240). Then Roberts goes on to emphasize Smith's creative power at storytelling.

As an example of Robert's power to unsettle the equanimity of the faithful, here's part of a review of VotH from Amazon.com: "As a life-long multigenerational practicing Mormon, I found this book extremely disturbing....Roberts suggests 18 parallels between the Book of Mormon and the View of the Hebrews. He did not complete his work and I think that at least another 20 to 40 parallels could be found. (I don't buy all of Roberts parallels). Much odd Mormon religious vocabulary is in this book and it frankly sounds like numerous sermons I have heard, especially from the High Council. The name Latter-Day Saints is suggested in the View of the Hebrews along with dozens of such haunting terms as washing and annointings, or avenging of blood. Whether this book along with the Bible and the sermons of the day provided a conceptual outline for the creative religious genius (who could quote 14 chapters of Isaiah from memory) Joseph Smith to write the Book of Mormon or not will not be proven one way or the other. But for those looking for evidence of this sort, View of the Hebrews provides some disturbing thought. I found actually reading the original text of this book and asking myself a twist of that old missionary question, could Joseph Smith have used this as a template? to be most unsettling."--John Foxe 17:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Somethings don't make sense in the writings. It could be that it just needs clarification. (1) 1821 to 1826 while he was writing View of the Hebrews (2) The first edition of Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews was published in 1823, and a second expanded edition appeared in 1825.

These dates don't match up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.78.242 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Scriptural citation

I've probably used the wrong tag here to mark this, but the reference to 2 Esdras 13:14 is not correct. The KJV (which I'm assuming was the bible version a Congregationalist in 19th century New England would be using) of this verse reads:

Thou hast shewed thy servant these wonders from the beginning, and hast counted me worthy that thou shouldest receive my prayer:

I'll look around; see if I can find the right verse. Perhaps it's a simple typo and some of the numbers got reversed or something. Snocrates 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Visorstuff for correcting that. Snocrates 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Parallels in the article

View of the Hebrews has nothing to do with Mormon apologetics. Further, adding "parallels" between this and the Book of Mormon doesn't help the article. The "parallels" section looks to be a hit piece on the Book of Mormon. The information that is currently located in the "parallels" section belongs solely in the Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon article.

This article ceased being about Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, and became more about B.H. Roberts' (and others) supposed doubts about the Book of Mormon. You see where I am going? I suggest reworking that section or removing it entirely. --CABEGOD 04:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing that information would be POV, a deliberate attempt to hide pertinent information from the reader. It's fine to say that Mormon apologists disagree.--John Foxe (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that adding the non-relevant critique against the Book of Mormon is a deliberate attempt at POV bias. By using the Book of Mormon as a "parallel," the article essentially becomes a battleground for and against the Book of Mormon. I say keep the article solely about View of the Hebrews with (perhaps) a mention of the Book of Mormon. These "parallels" are clutter, and also make this article reek of POV. Further, if we really want to go down this road, we would have to add "parallels" from other books.

BTW - Mentioning that "Mormon apologists disagree" without including specific disagreements (as you have listed specifics on the other side) doesn't really help the "NPOV" argument.--CABEGOD 01:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

View of the Hebrews is historically notable largely because of Robert's parallels. But there's no reason why you couldn't give a few general reasons for Mormon disagreement so long as it's clear that these disagreements are Mormon apologetics and not neutral scholarship.--John Foxe (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There are parallels that are, yes. I believe those are sigificant to the article. However, as the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research points out, there are also many huge plotline differences in the content of the two books, suggesting Joseph Smith clearly didn't copy from it [1]. Effectively on that link I have provided, FAIR 100% without a doubt proves that the entire "view of the hebrews" theory is utter garbage. Routerone (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

While this might be the case, I would recommend eliminating any Book of Mormon talk altogether on the article page as it has nothing to do with View of the Hebrews. But if I am wrong, and we are doomed to go down this course, then I would recommend an even number of counter arguments against the "parallels." --CABEGOD 01:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, View of the Hebrews is historically notable largely because of Robert's parallels. (The work is unimportant in itself. It's a pretty grim read if you've ever tried it.) An attempt to eliminate the parallels would be an attempt to hide vital information from the reader.--John Foxe (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright - Then I suppose we begin to balance the article via Mormon apologetics. --CABEGOD 04:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You may first want to read WP:FRINGE.--John Foxe (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I find that response both tedious and unfair. That means your basically saying "the mormon apologetic view doesn't matter", just beat it with a stick, its not allowed a say, and you're saying this, despite the fact that the Mormon apologetic view effectively trashes the very argument you are trying to put forwards in this article! So why, should this article display what is clearly the wrong information just because it is more "significant" in favour to obvious logic just because it is merely, "sectional?". You fail to understand that the clear fact that there are huge differences in several plot aspects (thus unparralels), pretty much proves that Smith didn't plagarize it! Hence, it is a very significant point to include. Afterall, consider that this theory is sectional within itself, if you're using WP:FRINGE for your argument foxe then its contradictary on the basis that it is not a "universally accepted" theory on the Book of Mormon's origin. It is merely speculation, a conspiracy theory, not accepted "fact", therefore why are you acting that it should be treated as such? and hence how it is "hiding stuff" from the reader? I'd like to add that the proposed "parralels" are small, and merely coincidental. The entire view of the hebrews argument is clutching straws and is indeed a pathetic attempt to deny what is truly the word of god. Routerone (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just how Wikipedia works. The Mormon apologetic view truly does not matter at Wikipedia except in the most incidental way. To challenge the peer reviewed scholarship of say, a book published by the University of Illinois Press, you would need to put into evidence a similar peer-reviewed publication. The FAIR website is not WP:RS: "Questionable sources...include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves."--John Foxe (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert's revision

Johnpacklambert has attempted to add a new section to the article based on non-peer reviewed apologetic material written by LDS Church members. I have no problem with a sentence explaining that the LDS Church disagrees with the scholarly view of this question and that cites Church apologetic works. In fact, such a sentence already exists. Adding more non-peer reviewed material to that citation is fine. But no non-Mormon scholarship supports the LDS view, and therefore the views of the Church are not supported by "academic and peer-reviewed publications," "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."--John Foxe (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Jan 2014

I'm (1) making some tweaks and (2) incorporating content from our article on Studies of the Book of Mormon. If you find some of these changes controversial, please feel free to revert those changes you oppose, while leaving intact those changes you find non-controversial. Per WP:BRD, please discuss on talk why you found them controversial. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the changes are fine. I dislike so many paragraphs, but this is a matter of taste. Perhaps the most substantive changes I made have been to return to the notes some of the hidden material.--John Foxe (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the edits. It seems to lose sight of the fact that this article is about the 1823 book and not Robert's 1922 publication. Also, the ten 1-2 sentence paragraphs, each with their own subsection, run afoul of MOS:PARAGRAPHS which advises against a large number of short paragraphs and specifically discourages the short sections which clutter the article and the table of contents. Although the parallels between the View of the Hebrews and Book of Mormon are notable and worth mentioning in the article, I don't think Robert's manuscript is nearly notable enough to be taking up half of this article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Combining the first and second (explanatory) list would tighten it up a bit. Is that enough, or should we discuss reversion?--John Foxe (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I think the weight before the addition was probably about right, though I haven't been a fan of the bulletted list (just doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me). I'd kind of like to try writing it in paragraph form, but without the sections, and might take a stab at that in the next few days if there are no objections. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me.--John Foxe (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've been working on it for an hour or two, and it's at a point where I had to call it quits and save my progress. So far I've put everything in paragraph form, and put the Roberts stuff in the middle paragraph. I also made a new first paragraph summarizing some of the key points (background, why it's important, who says what) and adding some completely new material. I ended up removing the 10 or so subsections that had been added, as they seemed way too tangential for what was I was writing and what I think the focus of the article should be (Ethan Smith's book). I'm ready for thoughts and feedback. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've played with it a little more and made a number of strictly stylistic improvements. My greatest substantive change was adding back more of the parallels, which are really independent of Roberts (though, of course, he laid them out nicely).--John Foxe (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I like the stylistic changes, but there are a few problems that have cropped up. In my version, I had the most notable similarities in the 1st paragraph in Wikipedia's voice, and then a selection from Roberts' list in the 2nd paragraph attributed to him. This version has Roberts' list up front in Wikipedia's voice, which I think is problematic since Roberts was using the "hemispheric model" rather than the "limited geography model" that has largely replaced it. For example, Roberts was assuming that all Native Americans were descendents of "Lamanites", a notion that is soundly rejected in current Mormon scholarchip, and something that the Book of Mormon doesn't actually say. The same goes with the idea that Native American languages all descended from Hebrew. I think the parallels that we're going to be up front in Wikipedia's voice should reflect a consensus of multiple scholars that include recent scholarship, not just Roberts' 1932 publication. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, would you be willing to do a quick source check for me, if you have the sources available? I'm having trouble verifying the claims that the group migrating from Palestine in the Book of Mormon traveled "northward" to get to the Americas. I'm also having a hard time with Ethan Smith saying that a Christian gospel was preached in ancient America (I thought his book focused mostly on Old Testament traditions...where did the Christian part come from?). If you don't have the sources I'll keep looking, but the bits and pieces Google is giving me aren't doing much. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Good questions. I need to curl up with View of the Hebrews for a bit.

My feeling about the "limited geography model" is that Joseph Smith would have been astounded to hear of it--"current Mormon scholarchip" being a delightful Freudian slip--and any "consensus of multiple scholars" should include non-Mormons.--John Foxe (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I didn't really understand the Freudian joke, but I' glad we agree on the central point. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a 1823 edition, but it's more convenient to keyword from the Google Books second edition (1825) at <http://books.google.com/books/about/View_of_the_Hebrews.html?id=xhIeAAAAYAAJ>. There are a number of references to the Ten Lost Tribes traveling north, and ES says that Spanish missionaries were told by their charges that "the gospel had in very remote times been already preached in America." (187) I eliminated the word "Christian" because ES doesn't use it--though, of course, it's implied.--John Foxe (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...that helps on the gospel bit, but it's the Book of Mormon where I'm unable to find the northward migrating references. I was hoping that Roberts had given a reference or at least an explanation on that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly a minor point and easily dispensed with.--John Foxe (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The parallels are described in Palmer, an authoritative secondary source, whereas the attempt to dispense with some of them is entirely the product of Mormon apologetics and therefore is, for Wikipedia purposes, illegitimate.--John Foxe (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Woah, slow down there. Nobody's trying to dispense with anything. I was just trying to make sure that the stuff in Wikipedia's voice reflected a broader range of scholars while this stuff unique to Roberts was attributed to Roberts. The watch towers and many waters business doesn't show up in Bushman and Vogel as far as I have been able to find, and I don't remember Brodie mentioning them either. I had only dropped the Hebrew language one because it was particularly problematic, but that can be discussed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I've now eliminated the watch towers and the many waters.--John Foxe (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there a chance that you might have misread the diff of my original edit? (If you don't scroll all the way down it looks like I'm just removing stuff which I thought might explain your reaction above.) Anyway, on the watch towers and waters bits, I'm not saying those have to be completely eliminated. I just wanted them moved down to the second paragraph so they could be attributed to Roberts. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I did understand that you weren't removing the material entirely. I didn't think it was necessary to include minor points like the watch towers or moving northward if there were a possibility that they might be controverted.--John Foxe (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oliver Cowdery

It smacks of ideological censorship to remove mention of Oliver Cowdery from this article. View of the Hebrews would be just another one of those early 19th-century "10 Lost Tribes" theories were it not for the fact that Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery shared the same time and place and that there are so many parallels between View and the Book of Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It smacks of WP:SYNTHESIS when you connect the two items to "imply a conclusion". Cowdery's residence is unrelated to the location of the book's author and has nothing to do with this book. I thought you weren't going to edit Mormon articles anymore. Bahooka (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Both Cowdery and View of the Hebrews are notable only for their connection to Mormonism. Cowdery lived in the same small town (population < than 2000 in 1820) as Ethan Smith, and the connection is mentioned by both Persuitte and Palmer. Even Fairmormon does not deny the connection. As a compromise, how about the following: No mention of Cowdery in the lead, but at the appropriate place in the body, the following sentence: "Ethan Smith lived in Poultney, Vermont, in the same small town as Oliver Cowdery, who later served as Joseph Smith's scribe for the Book of Mormon. Palmer, 60; Persuitte, 93."

(Who said I wasn't going to edit Mormon articles anymore?)--John Foxe (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the same issue of WP:SYNTH exists if it is included in the body of the article, although not as blatant. I am interested in hearing from others before a decision is made. And I see the restrictions were lifted in August, so never mind about my comment about you not editing Mormon articles anymore. Bahooka (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Any hint of synthesis can be avoided by naming the authorities in the sentence, "As Palmer and Persuitte have noted...."--John Foxe (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

We probably won't come to an agreement on this. If no one else adds to this discussion by tomorrow, perhaps we should seek a third opinion. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I support that course, and I trust you to frame the question.--John Foxe (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Has there every been any evidence that Cowdery ever accused Smith of taking his ideas and not giving him credit? It would make far more sense of Cowdery or Harris or any of those invovled that supposedly had a significant impact on the creation of the Book of Mormon to have come forward, made a claim, and accused Smith of stealing their work.

To the contrary, that seems to never have occured. Has any scholar speculated on why they all kept silent and allowed Smith to move foward without this specific criticism? They each had conflicts with Smith, but they all seemed to have maintained their testimony of the Book of Mormon; why? This is a whole that honest criticism has yet to address and should. It would have been far too easy to sink this ship of Joseph if others with such signricant contribution had come forward and stated what had supposedly actually happened. --^StormRider 13:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

They're all good questions, Storm, but we don't have to answer them. To make the reference to Cowdery appropriate in this article, it's enough that the geographic connection between Cowdery and Ethan Smith actually existed, that folks like Persuitte have advanced various theories about that connection, and that Mormon apologists have attempted to refute them.--John Foxe (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion is no longer an option now that more than two people are involved. As there is no support yet for your proposed edit, you may want to do a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Bahooka (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if we can work out a compromise first. Removing mention of Cowdery's possible connection with Ethan Smith would eliminate material that would be helpful to the reader.--John Foxe (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Only material that does not stray into wp:original research &/or wp:synthesis is helpful to the reader at Wikipedia; speculation, association fallacies, and subtle social stigmatization is not. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello John, the first part was a serious question. I have not come across any scholarship that addresses these questions, but I suspect that there is something out there that does address it. It would seem obvious that the number of individuals who have been alleged to have written or significantly assisted in the writing of the Book of Mormon never did claim such authorship. The question that would be of interest is why they did not. If you have read something that does address it, please let me know. --^StormRider 06:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Storm, I'm no expert here, but I can think of only three men who've been seriously claimed as authors (or co-authors) of the Book of Mormon: Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Sidney Rigdon. The writings of Simon Spaulding and Ethan Smith are sometimes considered sources for the Book of Mormon, but I don't think anyone's suggested that either of those men were connected with the actual production (impossible in Spaulding's case because he died in 1816). So, our hypothetical book would only need to address what Jan Shipps called the "prophet puzzle" for three individuals.--John Foxe (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Fawn Brodie's quote clearly shows that she believed the coincidences between the two books were too strong to be chance, and she is a reputable academic historian, so her biography and viewpoint are RS. Ethan Smith does not have to be claimed as an author to have influenced the Book of Mormon.Parkwells (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Brodie meets the standard of a RS. She is acknowledged by scholars to have been an excellent researcher albeit one that ignored most references that conflicted with her objective or thesis. In other words, she wrote history from a slanted position. She acknowledged this about her writing by stating her objectives; she did not find a conclusion, she delivered her preconceived determination. Her use should be judicious because of that and when possible, use other scholars. --^StormRider 09:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on View of the Hebrews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100619212828/http://irr.org/mit/view-of-the-hebrews-ch4b.html to http://www.irr.org/mit/view-of-the-hebrews-ch4b.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140331161942/https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=6633&linkURL=39.1MorrisOliver-8f403b91-8468-424d-8789-a99672f16e4b.pdf to https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=6633&linkURL=39.1MorrisOliver-8f403b91-8468-424d-8789-a99672f16e4b.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060905221220/http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=44 to http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=44

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)