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