The Apologetic Proof Paradox

Anti-Mormon critics argue from at least two different positions. 

1)- asking Mormons to support their claims with evidence.

2)- proposing deductive arguments which ostensibly show that LDS beliefs or claims are false.

These positions are both fine on their own. The problem is, anti-Mormons conflate the two. 

To illustrate with a fictitious example, an anti-Mormon might say, "we have proof Joseph Smith lied, because he told one person that he 'has never eaten fish,' but told another person that he 'has eaten fish.' These statements can't both be true!"  That is a deductive argument, and is easily countered by observing that Joseph may have eaten fish between making the first and second statement. But if you point this out, the switch takes place. The anti-Mormon now says, "you don't have any evidence to support your claim that Joseph Smith ate fish. We have evidence for our claims, while the Mormons are making claims without evidence." Of course, we don't need any evidence that Joseph Smith ate fish, as we have already refuted their deductive argument - by presenting a plausible alternative to their argument's conclusion. In other words, their argument is now reduced to, "we think Joseph Smith lied, but we can't prove it." 

Unfortunately, it seems to me that many LDS apologists don't realize the deductive nature of the anti-Mormon arguments, and therefore feel they must only "fight fact with fact," and never mention anything that isn't documented. For instance, in the fish illustration, an apologist might think, "well, they have documentation on their side, showing that Joseph did make those statements, so I must therefore find documentation that Joseph Smith ate fish." This is a fallacy.  

Of course, LDS apologists can additionally provide evidence to support their points, and that evidence can demonstrate increased plausibility and likelihood. However that evidence is not necessary in order to demonstrate that an anti-Mormon argument is flawed. Unfortunately, when people see the apologist presenting evidence, they can get confused and think the apologist needs to prove his point is true in order to counter the anti-Mormon argument. 

Moreover, anti-Mormons often invoke Occam's Razor - in an inapt defense of deductive argument. For instance, in the context of the fish fallacy illustration, they might say, "we already know Joseph Smith was a liar, so by using Occam's Razor we can confidently say he was lying about this too." If you disagree with their premise (i.e. that Joseph Smith was a liar), they often will try to prove that the premise is true by moving on to other examples of Joseph Smith allegedly lying - never returning to the original argument or admitting it was flawed. 

Now let's look at a real example of a flawed anti-Mormon argument, and my response to it. Notice that I defend my point with evidence, which strengthens my point but which may lead some to the false belief that my point is only relevant if it is proven - when in fact my point exposes a flaw in the anti-Mormon argument, even without being proven and even while including speculation. 

[2020 update: the following reflects my ideas on the subject as they existed a few years back. I have greatly updated the theory, and you can find a good starting point here] 

    Argument: Joseph Smith said that a roll, which we now refer to as the "Ta-sherit-min roll," contained the writings of Joseph of Egypt. We now know it does not contain any writings of the sort, so Joseph Smith was either deluded or lying.  

     Response: As my friends and readers know, I like to question things - exploring new ideas and trying not to take anything for granted.
     One example is the belief that Joseph Smith said that his papyrus collection contained both a book of Abraham and a Book of Joseph.
     The reason this sort of information is important is because it sets the tone for how we interpret other facts. For instance, the theory that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus which is now missing takes a hit if Joseph claimed there were two separate rolls for Abraham and Joseph - because that would mean two rolls are missing which need to be accounted for, not just one - which makes the theory less plausible.
     Alternatively, the missing papyrus theory would be bolstered if Joseph Smith was referring to only one document. This would allow, for instance, for the possibility that Abraham had written a book and then Joseph of Egypt redacted a small part of Abraham's book, and the small redacted version is what ended up in Joseph Smith's papyri. From that small redacted version, Joseph Smith could then have restored the full Book of Abraham - the book written as Joseph Smith said, "by his own hand." That's just one possibility, but if that's what Joseph Smith was talking about, then it could go a long way toward solving the Book of Abraham puzzle. A small redacted excerpt could more easily have fit on the missing end of the Hor papyrus scroll. 

     So let's explore the possibility.      

     There is little evidence that Joseph Smith personally said that Abraham's writings were on one roll and Joseph's writings were on a separate roll. For one thing, Joseph Smith was not keeping a journal at the time of his alleged statement. It's easy to see how, if Joseph Smith said something about the papyri containing the writings of "Abraham and Joseph," people could assume he meant that the writings of the two Patriarchs were on separate rolls (since we tend to perhaps think of scripture in terms of each prophet having his own separate book).
     In the context of my theory, one possibility is that Joseph of Egypt put together a few things Abraham had said about the Egyptians, for the purpose of talking with Pharaoh about Abraham's time in Egypt and about Egyptian history. 
     This would seem to square with a statement from Parley P. Pratt:

The record is now in course of translation by the means of the Urim and Thummim, and proves to be a record written partly by the father of the faithful, Abraham, and finished by Joseph when in Egypt.

     Pratt is talking about a single record which both men (Abraham and Joseph of Egypt) contributed to, and the wording of Pratt's statement is consistent with the redaction idea. This would account for why Joseph Smith never really talked about the contribution from Joseph of Egypt, due to the fact that Joseph Smith restored the original Book of Abraham, the one written by Abraham's own hand, not the redacted excerpt passed down perhaps in the extra space on the Hor roll. 
     We only have one account of Joseph Smith mentioning a connection between Joseph of Egypt and the papyri, a statement allegedly made soon after the purchase of the papyri. This one statement attributed to Joseph Smith reads:

… with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt

     This quote is from History of the Church, which was written in a first-person style as if Joseph was himself speaking, but was actually a compilation of statements which were primarily written by others. 
     Howard C. Searle explains:

Although little of the subsequent history was dictated or written by the Prophet himself, writers used his diaries where available and retained the first-person narrative style throughout.

      Although unfamiliar to us today, this first-person editing practice for compiled materials was quite common and acceptable at the time. Historian Michael D. Quinn observes:

Our present standards concerning plagiarizing, footnoting, and editorial adherence to the original manuscript did not begin to penetrate even professional historical writing in American until nearly fifty years after the original composition and editing of Joseph Smith's history, and were not generally reflected in non-professional histories until long after B.H. Roberts prepared the second edition of that history in 1900. 

     So, the quote attributed to Joseph actually appears to have come years later from Willard Richards, who wasn't even there at the time of the alleged statement. Unfortunately, it was a complex situation. And Joseph's method of translation does not require us to assume that he was even looking at the rolls of papyrus or explaining to his scribes which roll(s) he was talking about when he identified that the papyrus contains the writings of Abraham and Joseph. Moreover, the account from Richards could also be tainted by the public perception about the rolls as it developed over the intervening years. In any event, Richards does not inform us of anything Joseph himself actually said, and instead gives his own account wherein he chooses to talk about the scribes, and takes liberties such as the phrase "much to our joy," etc. 
     In a non-extant letter to William Frye, Oliver Cowdery made a statement describing his understanding of the Book of Joseph. In the history of the Church, this statement was also wrongly attributed in first person to Joseph.
     The letter written by Cowdery states in part:

The inner end of the same roll (Joseph's record) presents a representation of the judgment. At one view you behold the Savior seated upon His throne, crowned and holding the scepter of righteousness and power, before whom also, are assembled, the twelve tribes of Israel, the nations, languages and tongues of the earth, the kingdoms of the world over which Satan is represented as reigning, Michael the Archangel, holding the key of the bottomless pit, and at the same time the devil as being chained and shut up in the bottomless pit.

      It's not surprising that Oliver took occasion to “study it out in his own mind,” in accordance with the commandment which had been given specifically to him in D&C 9:8. In no way does Oliver attribute this information to Joseph Smith, or claim that it was an actual translation. Rather, Cowdery states that it is self-evident: “The evidence is apparent upon the face, that they were written by persons acquainted with the history of the Creation, the fall of man, and more or less of the correct ideas of the notions of the Deity.”
     Cowdery's letter was printed in The Messenger and Advocate, and, accordingly, I believe that's where the rumor of the roll of Joseph started. Cowdery plainly believed the Tshemmin roll was doctrinally significant, and since the writings of Abraham were being translated from the other roll, it would be reasonable to deduce (in Cowdery' s shoes) that the Tshemmin roll contained the “writings of Joseph” which Joseph Smith had evidently said something about. Again, I believe Joseph most likely said something about the papyri containing the writings of both Abraham and Joseph, but we have no way of knowing what his exact phraseology was.
     Some people may still choose to assume that Joseph Smith said the Tshemmin roll contained the writings of Joseph of Egypt. But if Joseph Smith was on trial, there would be no direct evidence to make that case. The only people who are known to have claimed that the Tshemmin roll contained the writings of Joseph of Egypt are people who would have had no personal means of knowing.
     These people can't be witnesses to any particular roll being the Book of Joseph, or being a record of anything else, unless they had the ability to translate. And the only one who did claim to have that ability, Joseph Smith, appears silent on the matter except for a quote which is attributed to him in a history known for routinely attributing statements to him which he did not make.
     One might wonder, if a misconception existed then why didn't Joseph correct the misconception? Well, if he became aware of the problem, then perhaps he did correct it – at least to anyone asking him about it in person.. But the question is when or if he became aware of the problem. He had a lot happening in his life.
     Did anyone ever ask him to clarify? I don't know that they saw any need. Once Joseph said something to the effect of finding the writings of Joseph and Abraham, and people could see for themselves that there were two rolls, the people could have seen that as sufficient grounds for their assumption, and then Oliver's publication of the letter, with those two words, “Joseph's record,” solidified the assumption.
     But wouldn't it have come up frequently in conversation? Not if Joseph only talked about the Book of Abraham. It's easy to say that everyone should have gotten together and talked about every conceivable misunderstanding and gotten them all cleared up, but that's hindsight - how many misunderstandings took place which were in fact cleared up, but we don't know about because they were cleared up before anyone wrote about them?
     Perhaps there is information of which I am unaware, but I see no reason to assume that Joseph Smith associated the Tshemmin roll with Joseph of Egypt.

Thus we see that a flawed anti-Mormon argument can be effectively refuted by pointing out plausible yet unproven possibilities which contradict the premises and/or conclusion of the anti-Mormon argument. 

Intelligent Design

It should go without saying that if God exists and were to make Himself objectively known to the world, He would instantly become the best scientific explanation for many unknown issues, like the question of how life began. Just knowing that such a being were out there would cause us to cast highly improbable natural theories to the wayside. They would become laughable.

For this reason, materialistic explanations for life and the universe, within science, should not be viewed as evidence against God, but as attempts to explain existence while working with the practical reality that there is no scientific proof of God.

There is, however, scientific proof of intelligent designers - since, after all, science itself is a product of intelligent design.

Unfortunately, some people seem to feel that science has taken a side on God. This is simply not the case. Science says nothing about God - and that means science does not declare that the "truth" about existence must exclude God. God is not a scientific concept, but that has everything to do with the limitations of science, and nothing to do with the probability of God.

If one believes in God, it is perfectly logical for them to believe that God had involvement with the creation of life. At the same time, science can't use God as an explanation.

This post however is not about God. This post is intended to dispel the myth that science has ruled out the idea of guided evolution (i.e. the possibility that intelligence played a role in the formation of life). This is relevant to God in the sense that one can fully accept science and also accept and entertain ideas related to God governing the particles of existence. And there may be evidence that certain features of existence are only explainable by either appealing to extremely unlikely scenarios, or to invoking fundamentally different paradigms, like design.

Science - real science - should be open to discussing and ascertaining those instances.

Unguided evolution may in the end be adequate to explain everything in biology. I don't know. But it is certainly true that it can currently explain some things better than it can explain other things. The question is, how "much" better can it explain some things than other things?

Standard definitions of Intelligent Design are similar to this accepted one: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause."

Evidence supporting this purported theory, like all inductive evidence, is a matter of probability. One might therefore expect debate over the theory to center on robust mathematical analysis.

Unfortunately, one would be mistaken. Rather than fostering rigorous debate over the potential merits of intelligent design (ID), some scientists have refused to "dignify" ID with a response.

Bruce Alberts, while in his formal capacity as President of the National Academy of Sciences, stated, "Because 'Intelligent Design' theories are based on supernatural explanations, they can have nothing to do with science." Many voices of the scientific establishment have similarly echoed such sentiments. Nevertheless, Alberts' statement is puzzling for two reasons.

First, the only "explanation" relied on by ID is "intelligent cause," as seen in the definition of Intelligent Design above. Therefore, Alberts is either saying "intelligent cause" is necessarily a supernatural explanation, or he is rejecting the definition of Intelligent Design and attacking a straw man. So we must assume he is referring to intelligent cause. But how can intelligent cause not be recognized by science when science itself is the product of intelligent cause? Alberts seems to be confusing "supernatural" with artificial.

Second, even if one believes that "intelligent cause" is necessarily supernatural, most scientists are more than eager to test claims of the supernatural and are eager to assert that supernatural claims can indeed be tested by science. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) boasts a long list of distinguished scientists as present and past fellows (including noted antagonists of Intelligent Design, Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott), and devotes itself to such "scientific inquiry." Particularly of note is that any "scientific test" of psychic abilities is inherently open to the possibility that the psychic may actually possess supernatural abilities. Indeed, CSI explicitly states as part of its mission that it "Does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examines them objectively and carefully."

In other words, the CSI considers valid the possibility of scientifically inferring supernatural powers through probability-based scientific testing of psychic claims.

Alberts no doubt is a brilliant man. But he and other scientists seem to be looking for reasons to avoid discussing the potential merits of ID as a theory. Or, possibly, they may believe they can read the minds of ID proponents and thereby discern a hidden meaning intended in the words "intelligent cause" - in which case they may want to contact the CSI and arrange to have their supernatural ability tested.

If these scientists had lived hundreds of years ago and heard someone hypothesize that unseen creatures were causing disease, these scientists may very well have claimed that the one making the hypothesis was appealing to ghosts and monsters. They may have declared that science ought not to dignify such a hypothesis with a response. Nevertheless, as we now know, the hypothesis would have been correct.

One can only conclude at this point that there is no actual debate. One side offers arguments while the other side makes claims while refusing to engage in dialogue. So let us examine each of these claims and debunk them one by one in hopes of eliciting a response and driving some intellectual curiosity concerning the discussion of ID.

  Claim: "Science only looks for natural explanations"

In response, let us ask, "what is nature?"

When we think of nature, we may think of life. But science has not actually shown that life is natural, as opposed to artificial (intelligence caused). Science does a great job documenting the nature "of" life, but that is not the same as showing that life itself is "of nature."

For instance, science observes that life "reproduces." But this does not make life natural. For the same reason, we would not consider machines that make copies of themselves to be natural, even if we were documenting observations about their nature. If flying saucers were to descend into earth's atmosphere, extract natural minerals from the earth and use those minerals to make parts and assemble additional flying saucers, and science documented all of this, that would not make the flying saucers natural. Even if we could not see any identifiable intelligent agent behind them. The observation of life existing and reproducing makes for interesting world history, but the existence of life cannot be assumed to be natural.

If everything in existence is natural, then intelligent cause is also natural. If, alternatively, science acknowledges some things in existence as natural and some things as artificial, then that would demonstrate that science acknowledges artificial as well as natural explanations. Either way, intelligent cause is a scientific explanation.

  Claim: "Intelligent design creates a bigger problem, because a designer would have to be even more complex and improbable than it's design"

First, the raw complexity of the designer is unknown and is only one piece of the equation. Humans 10,000 years ago were just as "complex" and intelligent as we are. But they didn't design much, compared with modern technology, because intelligence needs tools and knowledge in order to design. Tools and knowledge are separate factors from raw individual complexity. An intelligent designer may have access to a vast array of tools.

Second, to assume that the existence of a designer would be improbable is to assume that the circumstances under which the designer exists are somehow hostile to the designer's existence. Are we to assume that humans are the only intelligent designers to ever exist? It is true that the laws of physics make it highly improbable that we came into existence through strictly natural means. However, we have no basis for assuming the same about our designer. For all we know, a designer could exist in a different universe than ours, in which our laws of physics have no power. The limitations which make our existence improbable do not necessarily have power to limit our designer. We do not know the circumstances under which a potential designer would exist, and, therefore, cannot assess the probability of such intelligent agent(s) existing.

Third, the central implication of the claim is that the existence of the designer must be more improbable than is the existence of the designed items arising without the aid of the designer. But this is contradicted by the very people making the claim. Opponents of Intelligent Design will readily acknowledge that a modern computer could not arise without intelligent design. Yet these same people assert that the designers of the computer did. Therefore, they are asserting that the existence of the designer is more probable than is the existence of the design.

  Claim: "When ID proponents say 'designer,' they are referring to God"

A police captain may personally believe that a particular person started a fire. But when detectives determine the cause of the fire to be arson (intelligent design), their theory has nothing to do with and does not rely on the captain's personal belief. And when the captain holds a press conference referring to "the arsonist" he is not injecting his personal beliefs or making reference to the individual he believes started the fire.

So, no. ID is not "referring" to God. Those who happen to believe in God may suspect their God is the designer. But that is not a matter of ID theory. The fact that one that is omnipotent and omniscient would be capable of design does not mean that one who designs is necessarily omnipotent or omniscient. This is logic 101. ID does not throw away the possibility, but good science is not about throwing away possibilities.

  Claim: "Evidence for evolution is overwhelming"

The concept of life evolving does not contradict ID. Many ID proponents believe in both, viewing ID as a mechanism for some instances of evolution.

  Claim: "A designer had nowhere to come from" 

We live on a tiny rock floating around. We base our ever-evolving scientific understanding of existence on a short period of observations made from this limited vantage point. Why would anyone suppose that we have a complete enough view of reality to rule out other designers?

Does science say we should impose limitations on where things may have "come from?" Consider a child raised on an isolated desert island by his grandmother, who lived just long enough to teach the boy to care for himself, then died. As the boy grows older and considers his existence, should he believe that the island is all that exists, since it is all he can see and all he has ever known? Or is it more logical for him to suppose that his scope of existence is limited? Is it logical for him to suppose that the number of things that exist that he has not encountered is likely to exceed the number of things that exist that he has encountered?

If the boy creates a theory that other people exist - and other animals, resources, and technology that he has never encountered, is it a scientific theory? Or does science insist that the boy only acknowledge the existence of things to which he has been exposed? Is the boy supposed to explain his existence using only what is on the island? At what point is it OK for the boy to say "the island is insufficient; there has to be something more?" At what point is such a statement scientific?

  Claim: "Very little money is spent on research for ID"

How much money did Einstein spend on relativity research?

  Claim: "A judge declared ID is not science"

Is the government an authority over science? No. The government creates institutions to foster networking and categorizing, but science is a matter of individual thought. "Science" did not think up the laws of Newton. Newton did.

The judge essentially ruled that the public may not set its own curriculum at a local level, at least on this issue. Since the judge is not an authority on science, opponents of ID are committing a logical fallacy in appealing to his authority.

  Claim: "Knowledge of a designer is necessary before it can be a scientific explanation"

Science does accept that unknown designers can exist.

Consider the words of Carl Sagan in his universally acclaimed scientific treatise on the "Quest for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" - which led to millions of dollars in science funding:

"It is easy to create an interstellar radio message which can be recognized as emanating unambiguously from intelligent beings. A modulated signal ("beep," "beep-beep," ) comprising the numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 1 7, 19, 23, 29, 31, for example, consists exclusively of the first 12 prime numbers-that is, numbers that can be divided only by 1, or by themselves. A signal of this kind, based on a simple mathematical concept, could only have a biological origin. No prior agreement between the transmitting and receiving civilizations, and no precautions against Earth chauvinism, are required to make this clear.

"Such a message would be an announcement or beacon signal, indicating the presence of an advanced civilization but communicating very little about its nature..."

Clearly, prior knowledge of a potential designer is not necessary to identify the existence of design, at least not by accepted scientific standards anyway.

One scientific discipline devotes itself to ascertaining whether rocks are actually artifacts. Based on such things as angles of fracture too improbable for nature to have made, scientists can determine that someone used a rock as a prehistoric tool. Prehistoric man is a good candidate. Now suppose we were to find such artifacts on Mars. Relying only on rocks with fractures, and using the same standard of design inference accepted in the mainstream of science, we would be able to infer intelligent design - with no knowledge of the designer.

  Claim: "Nature can create complex things, like snowflakes"

Inference of ID is not about complexity, but probability and artificiality.

The argument that nature can create whatever is in question falls apart when one is forced to compare probabilities. For instance, if someone is presented two snowflakes and told one of them was designed and the other was not, and their life depended on determining which one was natural and which was artificial, it would be a random toss-up. But if the person is presented a finely chiseled statue and an ordinary rock and told one is designed and the other is just a rock, it would not be a random toss-up. They would favor the statue over the rock. They would not maintain that the fractures in the statue are just a naturally caused coincidence. But they would be forced to concede that the statue is more likely to have been designed than the ordinary rock. In conceding this, they admit that probabilities are not equal in nature.

  Claim: "To accept design is to give up looking for other explanations"

As a matter of science, that is not true. The search for new and better theories never ends. Accepting design as the best explanation does not mean we will never find an even better explanation.

  Claim: "Probability is irrelevant after something has happened"

Scientific evidence (inductive evidence) is always about probability. This includes things that have already happened, and evolutionary science relies on probabilities for things which happened in the distant past. If we throw away probabilities of things that "already happened," we have to throw away evidence for evolution.

For instance, consider endogenous retrovirus (erv) evidence for a common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees. Humans and chimps have ervs in the same places in their DNA. This is often cited as strong scientific evidence. However, if probabilities of past events are irrelevant, one could argue that this correllation in DNA may have simply been a coincidence. Human DNA could have mutated on its own in such a fashion as to give the impression of a retrovirus, without a retrovirus having ever actually implanted itself. But does science treat both possibilities equally? No. That's because probabilities for events which have already happened are still relevant.

  Claim: "Intelligent Design is not testable"

You have to understand how ID theory works. It uses a set of standards defining how science infers design. Science has always inferred design but previously did so in an intuitive, arbitrary fashion. ID sets an objective standard. The validity of the standard can be tested by confirming through independent means whether a given thing was intelligently designed. For instance, a set of several dozen large rocks on a beach in the shape of "Rescue Me Please" would receive a "positive" from ID. If we confirm that a person did indeed intelligently lay the rocks in that design, it is inductive evidence confirming ID.

ID can be falsified by showing a better explanation. Someone might propose that waves tossed rocks around the beach and they ended up in that alignment. One would have to show that the probability of waves doing that is better. Waves themselves are probable, but waves putting the rocks in a formation which generates information is not probable.

Whether the standards proposed by ID are accurate or need tweaking and adjustment remains to be seen. But adjustments are not new to science. It's certainly an endeavor which should be encouraged and debated.

  Claim: "Behe's mousetrap analogy fails"

Michael Behe has defended his mousetrap analogy, but whether or not the mousetrap analogy has flaws when applied practically is irrelevant. The mousetrap and irreducible complexity are simple illustrations to help people understand a larger principle. Evolution without design would require not only direct but also indirect pathways. Behe argues that indirect pathways are improbable coincidences.

In a direct pathway to a complex function, the mechanism starts with a simpler version of the function and improves it. Natural selection weeds out unproductive changes that occur to the mechanism, and preserves productive changes.

In an indirect pathway, a highly specialized mechanism for a function is built in the background of whatever else might be going on in the organism. In other words, as the mechanism is being built it does not serve the function that it will serve when it is complete. The more proteins which are necessary and the more precise their placement, the bigger the coincidence it is. Natural selection does not weed out unproductive changes or preserve positive changes to the mechanism under construction, except by coincidence (further coincidence).

Some have proposed that "scaffolding" takes away the problem. Scaffolding means that other mechanisms are in place to perform the function until the highly specialized mechanism is complete. The scaffolding solution is only an illusion however, as scaffolding in no way changes the coincidental nature of the construction of the highly specialized mechanism.

Others have proposed that parts of the mechanism may have their own functions and therefore are preserved by natural selection. However, this does nothing to change the coincidental nature of the construction of the highly specialized mechanism.

Even without adding up the math, we intuitively realize that indirect pathways are improbable. This is why Richard Dawkins started with light sensitivity when he proposed a very nice pathway for the evolution of the eye. From there, he proposed a series of additions with each one improving the function of the light sensitivity until finally the organism had a highly specialized sight mechanism. If Dawkins had proposed that light sensitivity was the last step instead of the first step, it would have been a terrible explanation. He may have tried to temper the problem by proposing that as the eye was built, the individual parts of the eye served functions other than sight, but even if he could think of such functions, the coincidental nature of the construction of the eye would be evident for all to see.

What Behe has shown is that some mechanisms do not have the luxury of putting the function first the way Dawkins did with the eye. Critics have no choice but to use indirect pathways and claim disingenuously that the indirect pathway is no less probable than a direct pathway would have been.

  Claim: "Ken Miller refutes ID"

Ken Miller doesn't understand ID. What Miller calls "the heart and the soul of the intelligent design movement" is actually a total misrepresentation of the ID argument.

Miller put up a quote from Behe which read:

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."

Miller read the quote aloud, but he substituted the words "the way that evolution works" in place of the word "directly." Apparently he thought his phrase was inter-changeable with "directly."

Do you see what Miller did wrong? He did not understand that Behe was only addressing the relationship between direct pathways and the definition of irreducible complexity. Miller was so confused that he went on to propose an indirect pathway, thinking he was disproving Behe's statement about direct pathways.

Miller also failed to understand Behe's use of the word "nonfunctional."

Despite the fact that Behe specifically put the word "nonfunctional" in the context of the definition of IC (meaning Behe was referring to the "primary function" of the whole), Miller insisted on ignoring the definition and pretending that Behe was claiming that individual parts of an IC system can't have any function of their own of any kind.

So Miller falsely claims that "if irreducible complexity is right, then the parts of these machines should be absolutely useless."

  Claim: "ID proponents are trying to advance religion"

Opponents of ID can't find anything religious in ID, so they point out that many proponents of ID believe God is the designer. And certainly, that is a religious belief. Also, some ID proponents try to use ID as part of a strategy to convince people of their religious beliefs. Certainly, that is a religious strategy. But neither of those things are descriptions of ID itself. They are descriptions of what people are doing with ID.

But we can say the same about evolution.

Richard Dawkins, one of the most famous and accepted advocates of evolution in the science community, uses common descent as part of a strategy to advance atheism. Does that mean the theory of common descent is pro-atheism?

Sir Isaac Newton, the founder of modern science, wanted to use his scientific advances to convince men to believe in God. Does that mean Newton's laws themselves are religious?

Newton's exact words were:

"When I wrote my treatise about our systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the beleife of a Deity and nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it usefull for that purpose." (Letter to Richard Bentley, a supporter of Newton's who wrote papers arguing that Newton's theory was evidence of God)

  Final Thought

How great is the probability divide between possibilities of different things evolving? I don't know. But that's the point. Science is supposed to attempt to generate answers to such things. But too many scientists are not even willing to treat this question as though it exists at all. Apparently they are concerned that any answer to the question will lend credibility to Intelligent Design. But that's a personal pet peeve of theirs. Science does not need personal pet peeves but objective scholarship.

The Problem Of Evil

     LDS Doctrines, especially the doctrine of a pre-existence, can allow us to solve one of the biggest and oldest concerns people have expressed about Christianity, and that concern is expressed as an argument known as the problem of evil. As I will show in this analysis, the problem of evil is not a problem for the LDS Church, but only a problem for those Christian Churches which have lost the ancient doctrines Joseph Smith restored to us.
     At first glance – and second, and third glances - the problem of evil may seem highly intractable. In fact, I dare say the difficulty of the problem has likely changed the course of many people's lives for the worse by turning them away from the Christian view of God because they assume that the problem of evil makes Christianity logically inconsistent.
     It starts with the fact that Christianity teaches that God is all-powerful, all-benevolent and all-wise. This teaching may also be found in other Abrahamic religions, but usually as a matter of opinion rather than clear doctrine.
     To briefly summarize the problem, it basically consists of trying to reconcile the existence of evil (defined variously, but essentially defined around the concept of suffering) with the existence of an all-powerful, all-wise, all-benevolent being called “God.”
     In solving the problem of evil, I would like to first point out that the problem itself seems to make a concession about the meaning of “all-powerful” and “all wise.” If a being possesses these two attributes, would they not naturally be all-benevolent as well? Being wise, they would recognize the reasons for wanting to be all-benevolent, and being all-powerful they would simply make themselves so. Yet by listing all-benevolent as a separate attribute, the problem seems to imply that either it is not necessarily wise to be all-benevolent, or that being all-powerful does not necessarily mean having the ability to make oneself all-benevolent.
     This may seem like a minor point, but we may then ask the question of whether evil itself is always unwise. Surely evil contradicts benevolence, but what if it does not contradict wisdom? What if wisdom calls for evil in some circumstances? If a being is all-wise and all-benevolent, would this then put the two attributes at odds? I say no, because I say the very meaning of benevolence must be determined by wisdom. Therefore, benevolence always answers to wisdom. Thus, if wisdom calls for evil in some situations, that cannot be seen as contradicting benevolence.
     At this point, the reader may accuse me of using semantic games. So let us transition to real terms.
     If God is all-benevolent, that would mean God loves the imperfect as well as the perfect. Thus God would not be bound by benevolence to create only perfect things. To illustrate, consider that if God only created perfect things, then we would not exist. That's because we are imperfect.
     Critics might respond to this by arguing that if God is all-powerful then God could have still made us but would have made “perfect versions” of us, meaning versions of us which could do no evil. To put this counter-argument another way, one could say that any good reason that anyone can conceive of for God allowing evil is wiped away by the claim that an all-powerful being would be able to achieve all the good results without allowing any of the bad.
     To see if this criticism is valid, let us consider what it means to be all-powerful.
     I have heard it asked whether God is powerful enough to make a rock that is so heavy that even God can't lift it. It is argued that if God can do it then God is not all-powerful because God would not be able to lift the rock. If however God cannot do the task, then God is not all-powerful because God cannot make the rock. Therefore, according to this thinking, God cannot be all-powerful, period.
     Our job presently is to determine whether this type of paradoxical question really indicates that God is not all-powerful, or if it merely indicates that language can create logical conundrums which have nothing to do with reality.
     Let's examine the question a little more closely. What prevents an all-powerful God from doing the task is that the task requires God to be two contradictory things: all-powerful and not all-powerful. So, failing to be all-powerful is required in the task itself. The whole question could just as easily be summed up by asking if an all-powerful being is powerful enough to not be all-powerful. Obviously, that question proves nothing about the power of God. The error here is that this question falsely presumes that a lack of power is a power.
     Thus we see that the task itself does not make sense. Before a task can be said to be impossible for God, the task must first make sense logically.
     Now let's apply this principle to the task of “creating perfect versions of us.” This must first make sense before we can require it of an all-powerful God. However, we don't know what it means to be “us.” The question begs a number of unknown variables, and touches on things we do not understand at their fundamental level – like matter and energy - and other things we don't understand at even more basic levels, like conscious experience and continuity of consciousness. There is no way for us to determine whether the task makes sense logically.
     Now, one might argue that people change throughout the course of their individual lives, and therefore it is possible to be a “more perfect” version of themselves. The question would then be why God didn't make them more perfect to begin with. But in fact, LDS Doctrine does not teach that God takes imperfect entities and makes them perfect, but rather that God shares God's own perfection with them. This raises another unknown variable, which is how the process works of God sharing His perfection. That very process might not make sense logically without the possibility of evil.
     Now, if God created imperfect beings like us because God loves us, we might ask why God didn't create us but use His power to only allow us to do perfect things. I suppose here is where Aquinas' argument comes in. Preventing imperfect beings from doing imperfect things is denying their free will. And in God's wisdom, we should not be denied free will. I would add that from my perspective free will does not mean that God doesn't know what we are going to do, it means God lets us be what we are even though God knows what we are.
     Ultimately, God will only let us have that which we will not abuse. But that is in the next life. This life is where we have a chance to abuse what God gives us. By only letting us have what we won't abuse, God will be effectively limiting our free will in the next life, but that will be only after we have demonstrated in this life what we are willing to not abuse. Even though God knows what we will do, it is wisdom in God to allow us to abuse what He gives us first and then, based on what we have actually done – rather than what God knew we would do – limit what God gives us from that point on. From this perspective, the purpose of this life is to establish our profiles of will. This world provides a limited, temporary state where we cannot do any lasting harm.
     Another question which may arise is whether it is fair for God to create us and then put us into a world of suffering, even if God has a purpose. This is I think a valid question, and I would answer it with the LDS doctrine of pre-existence which states we lived with God and were created as heavenly spiritual beings. Our free will was limited by not having physical bodies with which to sin, and by being in the presence of God and God's perfection. From there, we chose to come to this life, with full knowledge of what we were getting into. So, this life was not forced on us in any way.
     One could say God is responsible for giving us the tools in this world which we abuse, since God knew beforehand that we would abuse them. However, the way this was done was by God giving this world to Adam and Eve as a punishment for transgression, therefore it was Adam who created the tools by which we could sin. In turn, God atoned for Adam's transgression, and also the wrong-doing of all of Adam's children, thereby correcting the problem resulting from the creation of “tools by which we could sin.” God allowed us to sin but then took those sins upon Him, thereby eliminating the existence of the evil and only allowing the “results” of the evil to remain as suffering which is logically necessary if God is to share His perfection with us. Jesus suffered for our sins.
     I maintain therefore that in order for the problem of evil to actually be a problem for LDS Doctrine, it would require at least two suspect premises: the notion that we could have been made initially perfect and yet still have been “us,” and the notion that granting us the ability to be ourselves (free will) is somehow unwise or anti-benevolent. The only other problem is the idea that God in any way forced suffering or evil upon us by putting us here in this mortal life, but that idea is not relevant to LDS Doctrine, because we believe we chose ourselves to come here and experience everything we experience in life.

Broken Chiasmus

     Many people have discussed the significance of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, and this discussion is primarily for readers who are already familiar with the basic ideas. If you aren't familiar, chiasmus is a relatively simple yet elegant writing style in which words or themes are presented and then repeated in reverse order. Using letters, an easy example would be: “a-b-c-c-b-a.” Another example would be “(a)Mary (b)had (c)a little lamb, (c)a little lamb (b)had (c)Mary.”

     Ancient Hebrews used this literary device frequently, to highlight themes. So, the fact that it is found extensively in the Book of Mormon is evidence of authenticity. Someone went to a lot of effort to put chiasmus in the Book of Mormon (yet this fact was never cited by Joseph Smith or early Mormons as evidence).

     Unfortunately, both the critics and the chiasm hunters are missing something important. The real test of authenticity is the hidden evidence – what was destroyed, what became imperfect when the target language was imposed on the original source language.

     For instance, 2 Nephi 9:28 is a chiasm, beginning with “O the vainness and the frailties and the foolishness of men!” That is a well-crafted line in English. However, it breaks the chiasm so as to avoid the awkward English phrase, “O the perishability and the vainness and the foolishness of men!” The word order and the root were changed to create the delightful triad we have today. Something Hebrew readers appreciate was sacrificed to make way for something comparable that English readers appreciate and are able to remember. Notice the first word, “vainness,” shares “ai” with the second word (creating assonance) as well as number of syllables, and shares “ness” with the third word (end rhyme), while the second and third words share “f” at the beginning (alliteration). This is similar to the well known triad, “healthy, wealthy and wise.” Triads like that are constructed intentionally, just as chiasmus is.

2 Nephi 9:28

A. O the vainness

            B. and the frailties

                        C. and the foolishness of men

                                    D. When they are learned

                                                E. they think

                                                            F. they are wise

                                                                        G. and they hearken not unto the

                                                                            counsel of God

                                                                        G. for they set it aside

                                                E. supposing

                                    D. they know of themselves

                                                            F. wherefore their wisdom

                        C. is foolishness

A. and it profiteth them not

            B. And they shall perish

     The first thing we note is that the F element is seemingly out of place in the inverted half, and so is the B element. The F element is in exactly the right place however, as this is a profane chiasm. Since chiasm is considered sacred, authors acknowledge subject matter dealing with unholy things by putting a standard flaw or mark in the chiasmus, which is moving the element immediately after the pivot and reinserting it after two intervening elements.

     The precise placement of the F element is evidence that the chiasm is carefully crafted by someone who knew what they were doing. That initially makes the placement of the B element all the more curious, as does the fact the words in the B element are not from the same root. Until, that is, one realizes the changes necessary in order to create the triad in English. The exact synonym was replaced by a less exact word having the desired sounds to make the triad work. Two elements switched places in order to put the right sounds in adjacent words.

     The Book of Mormon abounds with chiasmus, but critics have long complained that Mormons ignore missing or out of place elements. Yet critics have not stopped to seriously consider where these broken chiasms came from. What we have is what we should expect to find in an authentic translation.

     Critics, for their part, could attempt to explain broken chiasmus as a result of multiple authorship, wherein one person wrote the book and then another person came along later and changed it without realizing they were disturbing well-ordered chiasmus. The downside for critics is they would then be tied-down to a multiple authorship theory, which can get complicated very fast.

     As for me, I would like to see future study of broken chiasms to determine how many of the changes   are attributable to a shift from Hebrew to English grammar - something which cannot be explained away by proposing multiple English authors.

     For instance, 2 Nephi 9:23-24 has nine matching pairs of elements for a chiasm, but many of them   are out of order. It’s as though the order was changed to represent the subject matter better in English.                                         

    Now here’s the most interesting part: one of the matching elements is the phrase “in his name,” but it appears three times instead of only twice. However, in Hebrew grammar the phrase “in his name” would have only been used twice, once in the top portion of the chiasm, and once in the bottom portion. That’s because in Hebrew grammar a single word or phrase would have been used to state that both “believe” and “be baptized” are “in his name.” In English, it was necessary to repeat the phrase and thus repeat that element of the chiasm one too many times.

2 Nephi 23-24

A. And he commandeth all men

            B. that they must repent

                        C. and be baptized

                                    D. in his name

                                                E. having perfect

                                                            F. faith

                                                                        G. in the Holy One of Israel

                                                                                    H. or they cannot be saved

                                                                                                I. in the kingdom of God

            B. And if they will not repent

                                                            F. and believe

                                    D. in his name

                        C. and be baptized

                                    D. in his name

                                                E. and endure to the end

                                                                                    H. they must be damned

                                                                                                I. for the Lord God

                                                                        G. the Holy One of Israel

A. has spoken it.

This chiasm is badly broken, but with enough elements, divided perfectly between the top and bottom half, to indicate that it started out as a chiasm. We must not make the mistake of assuming that only the last half is broken. The top half is only the order in which we have imposed letters, so most likely both halves have been distorted to accommodate English preferences.

Worthless

     Human relationships can be built on either a solid foundation or on a weak foundation. A solid foundation is based on the principles of truth and love taught and manifested by Jesus. A weak foundation stems from selfishness and pride, often manifested in the form of two or more people “uniting” with each other by attacking someone else. When allowed to go unchecked, this type of counterfeit relationship climaxes to the point where innocent people are killed.

     A certain man named Parley Chase swore, in an affidavit, that Joseph Smith was worthless. Lazy, intemperate and worthless.

     That sums up the claims made by dozens of Palmyra-Manchester residents who evidently considered themselves intimately enough acquainted with Joseph to both make that determination and to announce it to the world.

     This is not surprising at all. It’s clear many residents believed that Joseph’s story, about uncovering Gold Plates from the ground and seeing angels, equated to a form of witchcraft. Thankfully, the level of hysteria in Palmyra was not yet at the level of the Salem witch trials. This was after all a new, more enlightened era. But even so, accusations and rumors abounded just as they had during the witch trials. It’s easy to see why Joseph felt that from a young age he had been persecuted, as indeed the affidavits confirm that many people saw fit to take notice of the obscure boy and make him the focus of their anger, an unholy vitriol which grew and expanded virally, culminating in Joseph’s martyrdom – which was made possible by Joseph being removed from the safety of Nauvoo, Illinois and confined in known whereabouts. Clearly, not a single one of the 150 men who assembled at Carthage jail for the purpose of murdering Joseph Smith in cold blood would have hesitated to lie about him or sign a false affidavit if called upon to do so. Such is the nature of the opposition Joseph faced.

    Of course, some people will take the affidavits at face value, believing that Joseph and his family refused to ever do any work - unless it involved repeatedly digging huge holes into the hard, rocky soil as part of an occultic treasure-hunting exercise in which they never actually found any treasure but remained undeterred.

     Yes, some people may choose to believe that, but even if Joseph was a false prophet, the affidavits would still be a stretch for a number of reasons, not the least of which are the mathematics of how the family managed to work a farm without working it, and how someone so “lazy” and “worthless” either produced or was entrusted with the Book of Mormon.

     On the other hand, if Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, then the affidavits are fully explained by his story. In Joseph Smith History, he explains:

     It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?”[1]

     You don’t have to believe in a devil to see the simple logic, that if the Church is true, then there is a devil. That aspect of doctrine must be considered in any reasoned attempt by critics to disprove Mormonism. Failing to account for it is putting the cart before the horse by operating a priori under the premise that the Church is false. Indeed, the claims of Mormonism are not independent of each other, and as such, individual claims can only be challenged in the context of the whole body. This invariably includes a doctrine of a being who has earned the name, “father of all lies.” What would we expect the father of lies to do but generate lies, even in the form of affidavits? Planting thoughts directly into the minds of men, with the intention to misdirect, deceive and tempt – stirring hearts to anger and convincing people there’s no harm in embellishing stories about someone who “pretends” to be a prophet.

     One man who had certainly been stirred to anger was named Doctor Philastus Hurlbut. He’s the one who collected the Palmyra-Manchester affidavits, as well as the Solomon Spaulding affidavits which we will also discuss. Hurlbut also threatened to kill Joseph Smith and “wash his hands” in Joseph’s blood, for which Hurlbut was placed under a $200.00 bond by a court of law.

     Benjamin Saunders, a former neighbor of the Smiths, said Hurlbut had come to him but “couldn’t get what he wanted” and thus ignored Saunders and kept looking.[2]

     Hurlbut’s methods matter a great deal, for he was not only in a position to influence the contents of affidavits, but the pool from which affidavits were taken. If Hurlbut had been around in Book of Mormon times, he would have gathered plenty of affidavits from people like Laman and Lemuel, but from no one sympathetic to Nephi. The resulting collage of claims would paint a very different picture from the story we have.

     Lehi would be a “fortune teller” who tried to con the people of Jerusalem into following him, and when they caught on he skipped town with stolen property and started using a “peep ball,” which he called a Liahona, in order to find a hidden land of treasure.

     See how that works?

     Before coming to Palmyra, Hurlbut had already made the residents of Conneaut famous over their claims about Joseph with regards to Solomon Spaulding. So it was clear that whoever talked with Hurlbut in Palmyra had a chance to likewise get their name put in print. And the more colorful the story was, the larger the print would be. This fact alone is sufficient to account for anything said in affidavits. A certain percentage of people dream of attention and fame above all else. In an area the size of Palmyra, Hurlbut’s only job would be to find these people and offer them what they wanted in exchange for what he wanted. And, importantly, these people would not expect anyone to challenge them, but could expect to face only positive social consequences, since the only people from the area who believed Joseph would have already moved and joined the Saints.

     Now, what do I believe is the truth surrounding Joseph Smith and these allegations in the affidavits? The truth is that a Seer is entitled to revelation.

     Some time following his First Vision, Joseph was given an instrument to help him, preparatory to the work which lay before him as a chosen vessel of the Lord. This sacred item was a Seer Stone.

     The Lord allowing Joseph to exercise his spiritual gifts through the aid of an object is similar to the Lord instructing Moses to use a rod to do miraculous things.

     If one wishes to denigrate the rod of Moses by calling it a “magic wand,” that would do nothing to change the fact that the Lord can use objects to help us if He chooses to do so. Likewise, calling a Seer Stone a “peep stone” in a pejorative sense is an insult and does nothing to advance rational inquiry.[3]

     If the idea of God allowing someone to see hidden things through use of a stone seems troubling to anyone, just consider that the Lord lets us do that very thing when looking through a microscope. The Lord has designed the laws which govern our universe in such a way as to enable a microscope lens to reveal that which would otherwise be unknowable to us. We are accustomed to microscopes and take them for granted, but the Lord is not limited to using only the things taken for granted by us.

      If Joseph ever misused the Seer Stone in any way, he would be in the company of Moses, who used the power of God unrighteously at the waters of Meribah, which is why Moses was kept from entering the Promised Land. Joseph was kept from touching the Gold Plates for four years, but the Lord was merciful to Joseph.

     The one verifiable claim about Joseph and treasure is that he went to work for Josiah Stowell, who was searching for a Spanish silver mine. This is only problematic for critics however, as Stowell adored Joseph and considered him a great worker, which contradicts the claims of laziness in the affidavits. Moreover, Stowell had already been digging, with a number of hired hands, before he met Joseph. By all accounts, Joseph convinced Stowell to stop digging, not to start. Thus, if Joseph used the Seer Stone it was primarily to ascertain that there was no treasure.

     Stowell testified in Joseph's 1826 court appearance, an account of which reads:

Justice Neely soberly looked at the witness and in a solemn, dignified voice, said, "Deacon Stowell, do I understand you as swearing before God, under the solemn oath you have taken, that you believe the prisoner can see by the aid of the stone fifty feet below the surface of

the earth, as plainly as you can see what is on my table?" "Do I believe it?" says Deacon Stowell, "do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief, I positively know it to be true."[4]

Accusations Against Joseph's Family

     One item worth mentioning is the claim made by some people that Joseph Smith's parents were quite superstitious. Outside the accusations of a few Palmyra residents, the only evidence cited in support of this is an ambiguous statement made by Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, which she wrote in response to the claims of Palmyra residents. Here is the statement in complete context (emphasis added):

In the spring after we moved onto the farm we commenced making Mapel sugar of which we averaged each season 1000 lbs per year. we then began to make preparations for building a house as the Land Agent of whom we purchased our farm was dead and we could not make the last payment we also planted a large orchard and made every possible preparation for ease as when advanced age should deprive us of the ability to make those physical exertions which we were then capable of. Now I shall change my theme for the present but let not my reader suppose that because I shall pursue another topic for a season that we stopt our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business. We never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation but whilst we worked with our hands we endeavored to remmember the service of & the welfare of our souls. And not only temporal blessings were bestowed upon us, but also spiritual were administered. The Scripture, which saith, “Your old men shall dream dreams,” was fulfilled in the case of my husband, for, about this time, he had another vision, which I shall here relate; this, with one more, is all of his that I shall obtrude upon the attention of my readers. He received two more visions, which would probably be somewhat interesting, but I cannot remember them distinctly enough to rehearse them in full.

     The initial question to ask is why Lucy is bringing up magic practices when they have nothing to do with the subject matter she is writing about. The only explanation I have is that she is defiantly mocking the accusations against her, to show their ridiculous nature. She says, “let not my reader suppose...” - but on what grounds would the reader suppose such things? She had not given the reader any cause at all to suppose that she neglected her duties and went about practicing magic.

     She is simply repeating the accusations themselves when she speaks of “[practicing magic] to the neglect of all kinds of business.” Part of the confusion results from the fact that there are two different accusations: practicing magic, and doing so at the expense of other things. The fact that Lucy combines the two accusations into one sentence can lead to confusion unless you realize that's what she's done.

     To illustrate how this works, if I was accused of “working long hours, to the neglect of my family” and I responded by saying, “You need not suppose that I have worked long hours to the neglect of my family,” then someone might think I'm claiming to work long hours, unless they realize that I am merely restating the accusation and denying it. In fact, I only work part-time, I have no children and I have never been married!

     To understand grammatically where Lucy is coming from, substitute in the place of magic an accusation we know to be absurd. Let's suppose, for instance, that she had been accused of “beating pots and pans to the neglect of all kinds of business.” The sentence then reads:

Now I shall change my theme for the present but let not my reader suppose that because I shall pursue another topic for a season that we stopped our labor and went at beating pots and pans to the neglect of all kinds of business.

     The only confusion which then results is the timing of the next sentence after this, but it is a whole, complete thought in itself, not referring directly to anything previously mentioned but transitioning the thoughts and introducing the next topic of discussion. It is here that she begins her promised “change of theme”: 

We never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation but whilst we worked with our hands, we endeavored to remember the service of & the welfare of our souls.

     Thus, in contrast to the accusation that she didn't work and practiced magic, Lucy explains that she did work and practiced Christianity. This connects to the next line, as evidenced by its starting word, “And.” Thus, the “service of & the welfare of our souls” is certainly a reference to the Christian beliefs she proceeds to talk about, and she introduced that theme by making clear, lest anyone believe the claims of laziness, that not even her Christian beliefs stopped her from working.  

     She proceeds:

And not only temporal blessings were bestowed upon us, but also spiritual were administered. The Scripture, which saith, "Your old men shall dream dreams," was fulfilled in the case of my husband

     Some may still consider the matter to be ambiguous, but the only clear assertions we can garner from her statement are denials.

     Moreover, “soothsaying” and the like are the very things Joseph Smith denied so fervently. Those Palmyra accusations haunted the Smith family name. So why would Joseph's mother go out of her way to introduce the accusation as an aside, if not with the intention of denying it?

     Lastly, I should point out that even in the worst case scenario the matter is largely irrelevant, for Lucy is talking about a period of time before the restoration of the Gospel. Any superstitions practiced by Joseph's parents at that time would not reflect in any way on the legitimacy of Joseph's divine mission. Even today, people “knock on wood,” avoid the number 13 and wear lucky hats and such to sporting events. These are traditions and not religious beliefs.

Hurlbut's Other Affidavits

     Despite the evidence against Hurlbut's character, some people might still choose to believe that Doctor Philastus Hurlbut was an honest, objective, sensitive and even saintly man, and that his threat to kill Joseph Smith must have been an anomaly. But regardless of what you may think of him personally, anyone who insists that Hurlbut’s Palmyra affidavits are true, must also believe the Conneaut affidavits that Hurlbut took, which are about Solomon Spaulding. If those ones are false then any credibility given to the Palmyra affidavits must disappear as well.

     In other words, those who accept the Palmyra affidavits must also accept and defend the theory that a man named Solomon Spaulding wrote the Book of Mormon, if they want to maintain the idea that collections of affidavits are always credible.

     Spaulding had been a Conneaut resident but had passed away years prior to Hurlbut’s arrival. The Conneaut depositions Hurlbut took claimed that the Book of Mormon was remarkably similar to a manuscript which had been written by Spaulding.

     Residents claimed to vividly remember the names and details. One person even claimed that Spaulding had been given the nickname, “old come-to-pass” as a result of the manuscript allegedly using the expression, “it came to pass,” which is an expression found frequently in the Book of Mormon.

     Hurlbut eventually located a copy of the manuscript, after attempting unsuccessfully to involve Spaulding’s widow, who then lived in Massachusetts, but the manuscript contained none of the names or details given by the residents of the town. So, Hurlbut decided that because the manuscript held by Spaulding’s widow was not the manuscript described by the residents, another manuscript must have existed.

     However, Hurlbut had already taken the depositions in Conneaut, and none of the people spoke of two manuscripts – not a single one of them. The people claimed to vividly recall minute details of the elusive manuscript, 18 years after reading it, but they forgot all about the only manuscript which Spaulding’s wife actually had a copy of.

     Most critics of Joseph Smith seem to have long since abandoned the Spaulding theory. But how do they explain away Hurlbut’s Conneaut depositions?

    

Craig Criddle and Dale Broadhurst

     A man named Craig Criddle has sincerely and passionately tried to revive the Spaulding theory, even going so far as to do a wordprint study, in 2008 with Matthew L. Jockers (Jockers, et al.).

     A wordprint is supposed to be sort of a fingerprint, but with words, that tells us who wrote a book or a paper, just like a fingerprint tells us who solved a crime. Wordprints are supposed to be based on words like, “the,” an,” “and,” etc. because people use those words no matter what subject they are writing about and therefore the frequency with which those words are used by someone doesn't change very much. 

     At first, the Jockers et al. results do seem to indicate that Solomon Spaulding and Sidney Rigdon are more likely to have written the Book of Mormon than Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt and a couple other people.

     But there are problems with Criddle's methodology. The biggest problem is that Criddle used a closed-set of authors. This was the equivalent of trying to solve a crime by choosing a handful of people you consider suspects and figuring out who among them has the closest match to a fingerprint found at a crime scene – and even including additional fingerprints from a couple random writers who aren't suspects, in an attempt to make the analysis more scientific. The trouble here, of course, is that one would be defining a “match” based on criteria other than the actual matching of fingerprints. In fact, this closed-set approach to solving a crime runs counter to the whole reasoning behind fingerprint analysis, which is based on the idea that a fingerprint is so unique that we can be confident no two people have the same one.

     An open-set wordprint study, Schaalje et al., was conducted in response to Criddle's study, and its results do indeed contradict the Jockers et al. conclusions. Schaalje et al. is sufficient to cast doubt on Criddle's study; however it does not undo the results which Criddle did achieve, even if those results have limited significance. In order to truly debunk Jockers et al., I would like to see a repeat study using the Jockers et al. methodology, with just a few corrections made.

     For one thing, he included the word “king,” which is obviously not free of context. Given that there were 110 words used in the study, I realize that a single word might not seem significant. However, in a wordprint study using the “Nearest Shrunken Centroid” method which Criddle relied on, that one word would be like a red marble sitting among 100+ blue marbles.

     My analysis of Criddle's methodology also indicates that he did not remove all of Sidney Rigdon’s scriptural quotes, among other problems.

     My belief is that if Criddle’s study were to be repeated with the only differences being the exclusion of four words, “king,” “was,” “were,” and “had,” and also the exclusion of words used in scriptural set phrases common to both Rigdon and the Book of Mormon, then the results would be very different. For instance, Rigdon uses the set phrase, “that ye may know,” which contains three of the words used by Jockers - “that,” “may,” and “know,” and places them in conjunction with each other the same way they are used in the Book of Mormon. That creates an artificial appearance of similarity in writing style, which clearly taints the study results. And although “was,” “were” and “had” may seem like words which are free of context, they are much more likely to be used in narratives of past events, such as many chapters of the Book of Mormon and also the Spaulding manuscript. Those words are not free of context, for they deal with the context of the past.

     For instance, chapter nine of Mormon, which speaks about the future, uses the present-tense word "is" 19 times, but the past-tense words rarely if at all: "were" 0 times, "was" 4 times and "had" 2 times. Not surprisingly then, this chapter was not assigned by Criddle to Spaulding. However, Criddle assigned Mormon chapter 6 to Spaulding, which uses “is” only one time, but uses "were" 10 times, "was" 5 times, and "had" 20 times. It also uses the word “king” twice.

     The Book of Mormon chapters Criddle attributes to Spaulding are almost all in the context of war, which is a narrative of past events. Spaulding’s manuscript is primarily about war and kings.

     In addition to the wordprint, Criddle has also cited[5] an alleged agreement between independent lines of evidence. Specifically, he claims that the parts of the Book of Mormon which he alleges were written by Spaulding also share Spaulding's themes, original phrases, proper nouns, and Spaulding’s own plagiarisms from other sources. However, Criddle’s argument falls apart upon examination. First, these are not independent lines of evidence – the extant Spaulding manuscript is about war, and all the supposedly independent evidence ties into that theme. The themes are war related, the phrases are war related, the plagiarisms are war related and the proper nouns are war related.

     More specifically, the phrases deal with marching, fighting, etc. and they are not unique, despite Criddle’s assertion that they are; the plagiarisms are from chroniclers of the Revolutionary War, although I haven’t seen Criddle offer specific examples of these plagiarisms; the proper nouns in the Spaulding manuscript are not the same as the proper nouns in the Book of Mormon, but Criddle argues that a greater variety of proper nouns are used in the alleged Spaulding chapters of the Book of Mormon than in the other chapters, which I again attribute to the theme of war, since names of commanders and cities are referenced in war chapters, thus an increase in the usage of proper nouns.

     Criddle also argues that many Book of Mormon names are spelled similar to each other and says Spaulding does the same thing – however, Criddle ignores that the Bible also does this, and Solomon Spaulding, we can all agree, did not write the Bible.

     Another person who has argued prominently for the Spaulding theory is a gentleman named Dale Broadhurst. He has patiently devoted himself to documenting words and strings of words which are common to both the Book of Mormon and Spaulding’s manuscript. My answer to Broadhurst is a historical record from the 19^th century called Historical record of the Third, or the King's Own Regiment of Light Dragoons, which I simply call “the Third” for convenience.

     I believe the wording in the Third is at least as close to the Book of Mormon as Spaulding’s manuscript is. A computer analysis could detect how many word strings exist between Spaulding & Third, as well as between Spaulding & the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon & Third. To test my idea, someone would need to write a computer program designed for this purpose, and would have to account for differences in how the same words are spelled in the different books. I’d be interested in seeing the results, but I’m confident, based on my own preliminary analysis, that the Third would hold its own, demonstrating that Broadhurst’s efforts are misguided. Likewise, inclusion of the Third in the error-corrected reproduction of Criddle's study, which I would like to see, would, I suspect, settle the issue.

---

[1]    Joseph Smith History, 1:20

[2]    Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 2006, p. 610

[3]    Some early Church members may not have known to call it a Seer Stone, or for the sake of convenience when talking to people unfamiliar with a Seer Stone, and thus used the term “peep stone” in reference to the item, but not pejoratively.

[4]    Kirkham, New Witness 2:366

[5]      Craig Criddle; Exmormon Foundation 2009 Conference, Saturday, October 10, 2009 10:45 AM – 12:15 PM: Authorship – Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?; http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/conference.html