If the Book of Mormon was copied from View of the Hebrews, why are the story, structure, doctrines, migration story, and central message completely different?
The CES Letter and similar arguments claim Joseph Smith used Ethan Smith’s 1823 book View of the Hebrews as a source for the Book of Mormon.
At first glance the claim sounds plausible as both books mention Israel and are sort of related to Native Americans.
But when the books are actually compared, not only is it difficult to find any evidence of plagiarism, but the supposed connection between them is also impossible to sustain.
Completely Different Types of Books
You claim that Joseph Smith plagiarized View of the Hebrews, when the two books are actually read side by side the problem becomes obvious. The Book of Mormon presents a completely different idea.
So what exactly is supposed to have been plagiarized?
View of the Hebrews is a 19th-century essay arguing that Native Americans descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel who migrated across Asia and the Bering land bridge into the Americas.
The Book of Mormon never tells that story.
And it’s not about the Lost Ten Tribes.
Instead it presents a 270,000-word narrative written by multiple ancient authors describing a small family leaving Jerusalem around 600 BC, traveling across the ocean, forming civilizations, recording prophecies, fighting wars, preserving records on metal plates, and eventually witnessing the appearance of Jesus Christ in the Americas.
That is not Ethan Smith’s theory expanded.
It is a completely different storyline.
If Joseph Smith needed View of the Hebrews to supply the idea, why abandon its central claim about the Ten Lost Tribes?
Why replace a migration across Asia with divinely directed ocean voyages?
Why turn a Protestant essay into a complex historical narrative with editors like Mormon and Moroni compiling centuries of records?
Why fill hundreds of pages with sermons, visions, wars, and prophetic writings that have nothing to do with Ethan Smith’s argument?
If the Book of Mormon came from View of the Hebrews, why does it not actually follow any of the main ideas that book was written to prove?
The Central Message Is Missing
The climax of the Book of Mormon is the appearance of Jesus Christ to people in the Americas.
That event never appears anywhere in View of the Hebrews.
If Joseph Smith was borrowing ideas, why would he leave out the supposed source book’s entire argument and instead build a completely different story centered on Christ visiting another civilization?
The Migration Story Is Different
View of the Hebrews claims Native Americans descended from the Ten Lost Tribes taken by Assyria in 722 BC who migrated across Asia and crossed the Bering land bridge.
The Book of Mormon describes a small family leaving Jerusalem around 600 BC and traveling across the ocean by ship.
Different tribes. Different century. Different migration route. Different story.
If Joseph Smith was copying Ethan Smith, why change every major detail?
The “Parallels” Are Just Bible Language
Critics point to phrases like “remnant of Israel” or “bands of robbers.”
But “remnant of Israel” appears throughout Isaiah and the Old Testament. The Book of Mormon is constantly referencing the Old Testament account they had on the Brass Plates.
“Bands of robbers” is just common English.
If plagiarism occurred, where are the distinctive sentences?
The unique phrases?
The repeated passages?
The matching paragraphs?
The Arguments Ethan Smith Thought Were Strong Never Appear
Ethan Smith tried to prove Native Americans were Israelites by pointing to supposed surviving Jewish customs among Native tribes such as circumcision, purification rituals, Hebrew sounding words, and references to names like Jehovah or Hallelujah.
Those arguments were central to his book.
The Book of Mormon not only fails to use those arguments, it actually contradicts them.
Circumcision, which Ethan Smith considered evidence of Israelite ancestry among Native Americans, appears only once in the entire Book of Mormon. In that passage Mormon explicitly states that the law of circumcision is done away in Christ.
Purification rituals receive the same treatment. The Book of Mormon does not describe surviving ritual washings or ceremonial practices preserved among later peoples. Instead it repeatedly teaches that the Law of Moses was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, meaning those ritual practices were no longer observed.
The linguistic arguments Ethan Smith relied on are also completely absent. His book points to Native words supposedly resembling Jehovah or Hallelujah as proof of Hebrew origins. The Book of Mormon never appeals to anything like that. It never attempts to prove Israelite ancestry through Native languages or cultural customs.
So the question becomes difficult to ignore.
If Joseph Smith was using View of the Hebrews to construct the Book of Mormon, and if Ethan Smith believed these customs were the strongest evidence connecting Native Americans to Israel, why does the Book of Mormon not only ignore them, but explicitly teach that those practices were no longer being observed?
The Timeline Raises Another Question
The first claim that Joseph copied View of the Hebrews did not appear until 1902, more than seventy years after the Book of Mormon was published. And it wasn’t even really used until Fawn Brodie’s accusation in 1945.
Ethan Smith himself lived years after the Book of Mormon appeared and never accused Joseph Smith of copying his work.
If the connection was obvious, why did no one notice it when both authors were alive?
Why did this supposed source of Joseph Smith’s plagiarism only appear after the Solomon Spaulding theory collapsed? For decades critics confidently pointed to Spaulding as the explanation for the Book of Mormon. When that theory fell apart, a new one suddenly appeared.
It raises an obvious question. Are these discoveries of sources, or are they attempts to find any explanation that avoids the possibility that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God?
The Larger Problem
Even if someone assumes Joseph Smith saw View of the Hebrews, that still leaves an enormous question unanswered.
Where did the rest of the Book of Mormon come from?
Where did the detailed narratives come from?
The sermons? The prophetic visions? The appearance of Christ?
The editors Mormon and Moroni? The hundreds of named characters and events that never appear in Ethan Smith’s book?
If View of the Hebrews was the source, why does it fail to explain almost everything that actually makes the Book of Mormon what it is?