In 1823, a Congregational minister in Vermont published a book arguing that Native Americans were descendants of ancient Israelites.
His name was Ethan Smith.
His book was View of the Hebrews.
Seven years later, Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon, a sacred history in which an Israelite family migrates to the Americas and becomes ancestral to peoples described in the narrative.
The resemblance is obvious enough to raise a question.
But the strongest conclusion is often weaker—and more historically interesting—than the internet plagiarism claim.
What View of the Hebrews argued
Ethan Smith gathered biblical texts, travel reports, antiquarian speculation, missionary accounts, and contemporary theories.
He argued that Native Americans descended from the lost ten tribes of Israel.
He expected Israel’s latter-day restoration and believed American Indians occupied a providential place within that story.
This was not a secret theory.
The idea that Native Americans might have Israelite ancestry had circulated before Ethan Smith, and LDS historical sources themselves acknowledge that such speculation was present in early America.
That cultural context matters.
Similarities with the Book of Mormon
Critics have noted broad parallels such as:
- Israelite ancestry connected with Native Americans;
- migration and ancient American peoples;
- destruction and division;
- Hebrew prophecy applied to America;
- a latter-day restoration theme;
- concern for gathering Israel;
- and extensive use of Isaiah.
Some lists multiply parallels until the two books appear almost identical.
That method is unreliable.
If the categories are broad enough—war, prophecy, migration, Israel, America—many religious books from the same culture can be made to look alike.
The differences are substantial
The Book of Mormon is a narrative presented as translated scripture.
View of the Hebrews is an argument by a Protestant minister.
Ethan Smith identifies Native Americans specifically with the lost ten tribes; the Book of Mormon’s central migration comes from a family associated with the kingdom of Judah and includes Manasseh/Ephraim claims in its own genealogy and interpretation.
The books structure history differently, tell different stories, and pursue different theological projects.
BYU researchers have also challenged claims that the Isaiah usage proves direct dependence, showing that some commonly repeated comparisons were exaggerated.
That should be conceded.
Is there evidence Joseph read the book before 1830?
No direct evidence has been established.
The LDS Church’s Church History Topics material states that no evidence confirms Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery knew the work before publication of the Book of Mormon.
Joseph later quoted material connected to View of the Hebrews in 1842, but that does not prove he possessed it in the 1820s.
A responsible article therefore should not say:
“Joseph Smith definitely used Ethan Smith’s book.”
The documentary chain is missing.
What about Oliver Cowdery?
This is where the historical coincidence becomes interesting.
Oliver Cowdery’s family lived in Poultney, Vermont, where Ethan Smith served as Congregational minister when View of the Hebrews was published.
Some critics have proposed direct social links.
BYU Studies notes the geographic relationship but cautions against overstating claims of close association.
Proximity creates opportunity.
It does not prove transmission.
Historical argument needs more than “they lived near each other.”
B. H. Roberts took the problem seriously
One reason View of the Hebrews remains famous in Mormon studies is B. H. Roberts.
Roberts was a prominent Latter-day Saint leader and historian who examined naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon and compared it with View of the Hebrews.
His work has been interpreted in opposite ways.
Critics sometimes claim Roberts secretly lost his faith in the Book of Mormon.
LDS defenders argue that he was stress-testing objections rather than confessing disbelief.
The safer point is that an important Mormon intellectual considered the parallels serious enough to investigate.
That fact does not settle the outcome.
The nineteenth-century environment is the stronger argument
Suppose Joseph never saw View of the Hebrews.
The book still matters.
Why?
Because it demonstrates that before the Book of Mormon appeared, Americans were already publishing theories that connected:
- Native Americans;
- ancient Israel;
- biblical prophecy;
- America;
- and latter-day restoration.
That means these ideas were not culturally inaccessible to a young man in the 1820s.
The historical significance is environmental rather than necessarily literary.
The question becomes:
Does the Book of Mormon look like a startlingly foreign ancient worldview entering nineteenth-century America, or does it also participate in religious questions already alive in Joseph Smith’s world?
View of the Hebrews provides evidence for the second possibility.
Cultural availability is not authorship proof
This distinction is crucial.
Showing that an idea existed before Joseph Smith does not prove Joseph borrowed it.
Christianity existed before the Book of Mormon too.
The Bible itself contains Israel, prophecy, gathering, covenant, and promised lands.
A historian therefore must distinguish:
- possible source;
- demonstrable source;
- shared cultural environment.
View of the Hebrews is clearly evidence for category three.
It is a possible source.
It is not a demonstrated source.
Why this still matters for apologetics
Some LDS apologetics historically portrayed Joseph as an uneducated farm boy whose environment could hardly explain the Book of Mormon.
That argument becomes weaker as historians reconstruct the religious world around him.
Joseph lived amid:
- revivalism;
- biblical saturation;
- speculation about Native American origins;
- treasure seeking;
- restorationist impulses;
- anti-Masonic controversy;
- debates over churches and authority;
- and intense fascination with prophecy.
View of the Hebrews is one concrete artifact from that world.
It does not solve the entire authorship question.
It does make “there was nothing like these ideas around Joseph” untenable.
Final Verdict
There is no adequate historical basis for stating as fact that Joseph Smith plagiarized View of the Hebrews. No document proves he used the book before 1830, and many proposed parallels are broad.
Yet the absence of proven direct copying does not make the parallels apologetically irrelevant. Ethan Smith’s work demonstrates that a pre-Book-of-Mormon American religious culture already connected Native Americans with Israel, prophecy, restoration, and biblical history. The Book of Mormon’s conceptual world was therefore available in Joseph Smith’s environment without an ancient Nephite source.
This single comparison cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, but the LDS defense does not convert lack of a smoking gun into evidence for antiquity. In the cumulative case—alongside KJV dependence, nineteenth-century language, and anachronistic patterns—the environmental explanation remains stronger than the claim that the book restores an otherwise lost ancient Christian civilization.
Key Sources
- BYU Studies, “View of the Hebrews”: https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/view-of-the-hebrews
- LDS Church History Topics, “Critics of the Book of Mormon”: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/critics-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng
- BYU Studies, “Oliver Cowdery’s Vermont Years and the Origins of Mormonism”: https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/oliver-cowderys-vermont-years-and-the-origins-of-mormonism
- LDS Ensign, “Would you respond to the theories… View of the Hebrews?”: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1976/09/i-have-a-question/would-you-respond-to-the-theories-that-the-book-of-mormon-is-based-on-the-spaulding-manuscript-or-on-ethan-smiths-view-of-the-hebrews?lang=eng
- BYU Studies, “View of the Hebrews: Substitute for Inspiration?”: https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/view-of-the-hebrews-substitute-for-inspiration