Kinderhooked?

[Calm]

They join Caswall's famous Greek Psalter as another failed attempt to hoax the prophet.

Quick question. Just want to know if it's worth my time to do a bit of exploring having just finished reading Nibley's Brass and Cymbals.

Caswall's Psalter---is his the only original source for that story or are there independent witnesses of his visit and/or interview with JS.

[Alf O'Mega]

Ah. So you are arguing from the "tu quoque" fallacy. Got it.

No tu quoque here. Just using a readily available parallel case.

Since you asked, I will tell you that I am entirely comfortable quoting and teaching from Section 131. It has been accepted by the Church and sustained as scripture. I do not profess to know all the dull documentary details. Perhaps the context you have carefully removed shows that Joseph was explicitly stated to be present at the time, and the statement you cited actually uttered by him. Perhaps the accuracy of the transcription has at some time been independently verified.

Perhaps someone who cares will bother looking into the matter.

I wouldn't expect you to feel any discomfort teaching from D&C 131. I am suggesting that you (even more than I) should consider Clayton a reliable witness, and where his report conflicts with others' (and I'm not convinced it necessarily does), this canon-level reliability should be considered.

I have provided the full context of the May 17, 1843 diary entry elsewhere on this thread, so our slightly less apathetic readers should be able to find it with minimal effort.

For my part, I consider Clayton's diary entries for both May 1 and May 17 to be likely accurate and reliable. I have no ideological reason to privilege one over the other, so I am free to accept them both as contributing to my understanding of the fascinating character of Joseph Smith.

[Alf O'Mega]

Caswall's Psalter---is his the only original source for that story or are there independent witnesses of his visit and/or interview with JS.

I'm not aware of any independent witness to the Caswall visit.

[Pahoran]

Quick question. Just want to know if it's worth my time to do a bit of exploring having just finished reading Nibley's Brass and Cymbals.

Caswall's Psalter---is his the only original source for that story or are there independent witnesses of his visit and/or interview with JS.

At the time Nibley wrote The Myth Makers he knew of no other source. He relied upon Caswall's own ever-shifting story. However, he subsequently found one: none other than John Taylor. In a debate with some English clergymen in France, the reverend gentlemen trotted out Caswall's psalter story. Taylor was able to refute some of his claims based upon his personal recollection of meeting Caswall in the store on his first day at Nauvoo. He was, of course, unable to say anything about Caswall's famous meeting with Joseph, because it never happened.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

No tu quoque here. Just using a readily available parallel case.

No, it is not.

I wouldn't expect you to feel any discomfort teaching from D&C 131. I am suggesting that you (even more than I) should consider Clayton a reliable witness, and where his report conflicts with others' (and I'm not convinced it necessarily does), this canon-level reliability should be considered.

I'm not sure which is more amazing. You seem to have this notion that because one of Clayton's writings was used as a source for canonical scripture, this somehow canonises everything he wrote. How? By contact? Are you perhaps labouring under the misapprehension that canonicity something like a communicable disease?

But is this weird idea more amazing, less amazing, or about as amazing as the arrogance by which you presume to instruct me about what I should believe about things that you reject?

I have provided the full context of the May 17, 1843 diary entry elsewhere on this thread, so our slightly less apathetic readers should be able to find it with minimal effort.

Indeed, I have found it. It was on page three. Here it is, exactly as you quoted it:

[May 17, 1843. Wednesday.] Breakfast at Brother [] Perkins, after which we took a pleasure ride through Fountain Green. At 10 President Joseph preached on 2nd Peter Chap[ter] 1. He shewed that knowledge is power and the man who has the most knowledge has the greatest power. Also that salvation means a mans being placed beyond the powers of all his enemies. He said the more sure word of prophecy meant, a mans knowing that he was sealed up unto eternal life by revelation and the spirit of prophecy through the power of the Holy priesthood. He also showed that it was impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. Paul had seen the third heavens and I more. Peter penned the most sublime language of any of the apostles (Intimate Chronicle, 103). [Emphasis added.]

So once again we see that the full context of a quote does not support the use an anti-Mormon puts to it. This passage is clearly a first-hand account of what Joseph said in William's hearing. There is, as even you can see, no such clarity around the other entry.

Please note that I originally said, when commenting upon this issue:

Perhaps the context you have carefully removed shows that Joseph was explicitly stated to be present at the time, and the statement you cited actually uttered by him.

It appears I was correct. Do I get a prize for guessing why Alf cropped the quote, and then tried to rely upon the laziness of his audience to let him get away with it?

For my part, I consider Clayton's diary entries for both May 1 and May 17 to be likely accurate and reliable. I have no ideological reason to privilege one over the other, so I am free to accept them both as contributing to my understanding of the fascinating character of Joseph Smith.

That's a clever little dissemble there; because, as you perfectly well know, you do have a very clear ideological reason to want to pretend that they are of equal value; IOW, to tie one to the apron-strings of the other; which is utterly without foundation, of course. This is just a variation of the ad hominem fallacy, but instead of trying to discredit something William wrote based upon something else unrelated that he said or did, you are trying to leverage the admitted prestige of something else unrelated to bolster the credibility of what is unlikely to be a record of anything more than a rumour.

Did you really think any of us would fall for that?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

At the time Nibley wrote The Myth Makers he knew of no other source. He relied upon Caswall's own ever-shifting story. However, he subsequently found one: none other than John Taylor. In a debate with some English clergymen in France, the reverend gentlemen trotted out Caswall's psalter story. Taylor was able to refute some of his claims based upon his personal recollection of meeting Caswall in the store on his first day at Nauvoo. He was, of course, unable to say anything about Caswall's famous meeting with Joseph, because it never happened.

Regards,

Pahoran

Interesting, thank you. The way I read it Nibley believed that Caswall (Caswell is a variant spelling) had visited Nauvoo, just that he never met JS (among other things his physical description was way off).

[Pahoran]

Interesting, thank you. The way I read it Nibley believed that Caswall (Caswell is a variant spelling) had visited Nauvoo, just that he never met JS (among other things his physical description was way off).

Yes. That, and the fact that the famous meeting is the part of the story that changes the most. First, as in the version that Alf foolishly quoted on the now-closed thread, Caswall shows up with a Greek psalter he had recently aquired to test Joseph's scholarship; a crowd gathers around him as he advances up the street with the psalter in his hand; Joseph (who apparently has no eyes) meets him a short distance from his house, invites him in, asks him what he thinks his book is; Caswall tells him it's a Greek psalter, and then Joseph, in a fantastically ungrammatical hillbilly speech, calls it a "dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics." He then offers to buy it so he can translate it, but Caswall refuses, says he would not sell it even for $900 in gold, and takes it away. They then repair to another room where they look at the mummies. Caswall points at a character and asks a question, looks around, and Joseph is gone. So he waits and waits, and finally goes downstairs and out into the street, just in time to see Joseph drive past in a light wagon, furiously lashing his splendid steeds (as Nibley hilariously wrote) in his superbly tactful effort to escape having to explain that hieroglyphic symbol to a deaf old clergyman who knew no Greek.

What a great story!

Unfortunately, it changes radically with every new edition of Caswall's book.

The test of scholarship becomes a test of inspiration; a crowd that had gathered around him subsequently gathers around Joseph, and then disappears altogether; Joseph's famous white hat, completely absent from the earlier effort, suddenly appears just after it has become an icon of popular anti-Mormonism; the "few words" of Greek also disappear as the "dictionary" turns into the equivalent of another Book of Mormon, written entirely in "Reformed Egyptian"--a New World script that Joseph would not reasonably expect to see in any Old World text, if he had ever read The Book of Mormon. Mr. Caswall, incidentally, had never read it, which explains why he made that mistake, but not why Joseph would. The wonderful wagon scene also disappears, while several long speeches suddenly get remembered much later. In short, Caswall is never fully satisfied with his psalter story, and puts it through a long process of "continuous improvement," a process that is consistent with nothing but the fact that he is confident that he will never be challenged about the particulars.

And why was he so confident?

Because it never happened. He made it up. Entirely.

And thus it is evidence of nothing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

I think it is pretty well established that he looked at the plates. That much is certain.

It seems also likely that, looking at the interesting characters, some of which do resemble the characters Joseph had copied and widely circulated, he may well have made some attempt to understand what he was looking at.

IOW, to attempt a translation.

So the answer is yes, I think he did attempt it.

The fact that no such translation has ever been produced, nor indeed has been reliably reported to have ever existed, leads to the reasonable conclusion that he never produced one.

IOW, his attempt was not successful,...[and] he did not then fabricate anything to make up for his failure.

Well, there. All things being equal (and they're not), this is pretty much my take on the situation as well.

Best.

CKS

[Alf O'Mega]

Ah. So you are arguing from the "tu quoque" fallacy. Got it.

No tu quoque here. Just using a readily available parallel case.

No, it is not.

Yes, it is. [And the crowd goes wild as Alf deftly returns Pahoran's blistering cross-court forehand!]

I'm not sure which is more amazing. You seem to have this notion that because one of Clayton's writings was used as a source for canonical scripture, this somehow canonises everything he wrote. How? By contact? Are you perhaps labouring under the misapprehension that canonicity [is] something like a communicable disease?

Goodness, Pahoran, put that scythe down. What did that poor straw man ever do to you? I am making no such claim. I am simply suggesting that Clayton's record should generally be considered pretty reliable given the nearly unique status some of its entries have achieved. (Willard Richards is in the same categoryâ??see D&C 130.) Obviously I'm not suggesting the canonizing has immunized any part of Clayton's record from critical examination. But these passages are neatly parallel in their attribution to the Prophet of oracular pronouncements quoted with language suggesting a firsthand hearing.

But is this weird idea more amazing, less amazing, or about as amazing as the arrogance by which you presume to instruct me about what I should believe about things that you reject?

You're a big boy. You should be able to deal with calls for consistency, even from ideological outsiders.

I have provided the full context of the May 17, 1843 diary entry elsewhere on this thread, so our slightly less apathetic readers should be able to find it with minimal effort.

Indeed, I have found it. It was on page three. Here it is, exactly as you quoted it:

[May 17, 1843. Wednesday.] Breakfast at Brother [] Perkins, after which we took a pleasure ride through Fountain Green. At 10 President Joseph preached on 2nd Peter Chap[ter] 1. He shewed that knowledge is power and the man who has the most knowledge has the greatest power. Also that salvation means a mans being placed beyond the powers of all his enemies. He said the more sure word of prophecy meant, a mans knowing that he was sealed up unto eternal life by revelation and the spirit of prophecy through the power of the Holy priesthood. He also showed that it was impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. Paul had seen the third heavens and I more. Peter penned the most sublime language of any of the apostles (Intimate Chronicle, 103). [Emphasis added.]

So once again we see that the full context of a quote does not support the use an anti-Mormon puts to it. This passage is clearly a first-hand account of what Joseph said in William's hearing. There is, as even you can see, no such clarity around the other entry.

Wow, with all those bolds I really must bow to the force of your argument. Wait, no, I mustn't.

[May 1, 1843. Monday.] A.M. at the Temple. At 10 m[arried] J[oseph] to L[ucy] W[alker]. P.m. at President Josephs . . . I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County . . . President Joseph has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth (William Clayton diary, 1 May 1843, quoted in George D. Smith, An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995], 100, emphasis mine).

I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about 6 feet from the surface of the earth which was 9 foot high. [At this point there is a tracing of a plate in the journal.] The plates were on the breast of the skeleton. This diagram shows the size of the plates being drawn on the edge of one of them. They are covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth (William Clayton diary, 1 May 1843, quoted in James B. Allen, Trials of Discipleship: The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon [urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987], 117, emphasis mine).

Note that neither of the above sources has the entirety of Clayton's entry for May 1, 1843. Don refers to Allen's No Toil Nor Labor Fear: The Story of William Clayton, which may have the complete entry, but I haven't seen it. The first ellipsis in Intimate Chronicle may be the equivalent of what ended up in History of the Church 5:372: "I rode out with Lucien Woodworth, and paid him

[why me]

Now that we have 10 pages of this thread on the kinderhook plates what can we finally establish? I believe that the first thing to be established is that the antis who use these plates as evidence against Joseph are barking up the wrong tree. After reading this thread it is obvious that the apologetists have done well in defense of JS.

The kinderhook plates are not a slam dunk in proving Joseph a fraud. It seems that there is much more to the story. Unfortunately we may never know what exactly happened at that time.

[minofyre]

KinderHOOKED is what happened to america when Georage W. Bush was elected a SECOND TIME to office.

SORRY, i JUST COULD NOT RESIST.

[Alf O'Mega]

Interesting, thank you. The way I read it Nibley believed that Caswall (Caswell is a variant spelling) had visited Nauvoo, just that he never met JS (among other things his physical description was way off).

Yes. That, and the fact that the famous meeting is the part of the story that changes the most. First, as in the version that Alf foolishly quoted on the now-closed thread, Caswall shows up with a Greek psalter he had recently aquired to test Joseph's scholarship; a crowd gathers around him as he advances up the street with the psalter in his hand; Joseph (who apparently has no eyes) meets him a short distance from his house, invites him in, asks him what he thinks his book is; Caswall tells him it's a Greek psalter, and then Joseph, in a fantastically ungrammatical hillbilly speech, calls it a "dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics." He then offers to buy it so he can translate it, but Caswall refuses, says he would not sell it even for $900 in gold, and takes it away. They then repair to another room where they look at the mummies. Caswall points at a character and asks a question, looks around, and Joseph is gone. So he waits and waits, and finally goes downstairs and out into the street, just in time to see Joseph drive past in a light wagon, furiously lashing his splendid steeds (as Nibley hilariously wrote) in his superbly tactful effort to escape having to explain that hieroglyphic symbol to a deaf old clergyman who knew no Greek.

What a great story!

Unfortunately, it changes radically with every new edition of Caswall's book.

The test of scholarship becomes a test of inspiration; a crowd that had gathered around him subsequently gathers around Joseph, and then disappears altogether; Joseph's famous white hat, completely absent from the earlier effort, suddenly appears just after it has become an icon of popular anti-Mormonism; the "few words" of Greek also disappear as the "dictionary" turns into the equivalent of another Book of Mormon, written entirely in "Reformed Egyptian"--a New World script that Joseph would not reasonably expect to see in any Old World text, if he had ever read The Book of Mormon. Mr. Caswall, incidentally, had never read it, which explains why he made that mistake, but not why Joseph would. The wonderful wagon scene also disappears, while several long speeches suddenly get remembered much later. In short, Caswall is never fully satisfied with his psalter story, and puts it through a long process of "continuous improvement," a process that is consistent with nothing but the fact that he is confident that he will never be challenged about the particulars.

And why was he so confident?

Because it never happened. He made it up. Entirely.

And thus it is evidence of nothing.

As I noted on that thread where I foolishly weighed in with the Caswall account, I am not particularly invested in whether the Caswall meeting actually happened. (I think it probably did. Even though subsequent accounts embellish the details, I see no reason to doubt that the meeting actually happened. I view Joseph's First Vision in much the same way.)

I was simply interested in another source for the idea that Joseph believed you could extract many words of English from a single character of Egyptian. Interestingly, this thread has provided yet another witness to that notion. Stanley Kimball cites an April 8, 1878 letter from Wilbur Fugate that recalls:

We understood Jo Smith said [the plates] would make a book of 1200 pages but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England.

An indirect witness, to be sure, but how likely is it that independent antagonists like Henry Caswall and Wilbur Fugate would concoct the same outlandish idea, one that is also attested by David Whitmer?

Also, as Craig Foster points out:

While the hypothetical interview is entertaining and informative, pointing out minor discrepancies in Caswall's various published versions of the incident, the narrow "cross-examination" approach hampers a more detailed look at Henry Caswall and his works. Also, while Nibley claims that there was no mention of Caswall's visit in contemporary official or personal journals, the Times and Seasons corroborates Caswall's claims of visiting Nauvoo. The visit, including the presence of a Greek manuscript, was also verified by John Taylor during an 1850 debate in which he participated in France. Therefore, while Nibley correctly identifies the problems with Caswall's story, such as the ridiculous description of the prophet's physical and grammatical characteristics, his defense has problems that need to be further researched and evaluated (Craig L. Foster, "Henry Caswall: Anti-Mormon Extraordinaire," BYU Studies, vol. 35 no. 4, [my copy unpaginated]).

How can you possibly know, Pahoran, that:

. . . it never happened. He made it up. Entirely.

The strength of your assertion is beyond all warrant from the evidence.

Or are you bearing us your independent testimony?

[Pahoran]

As I noted on that thread where I foolishly weighed in with the Caswall account, I am not particularly invested in whether the Caswall meeting actually happened. (I think it probably did. Even though subsequent accounts embellish the details, I see no reason to doubt that the meeting actually happened. I view Joseph's First Vision in much the same way.)

There, you see; I see no reason to imagine that the meeting actually happened at all. The accounts are utterly contradictory, quite unlike the First Vision, as of course you know, so your sly, manipulative attempt to somehow link the two has failed. I suggest you don't try a stunt like that again.

I was simply interested in another source for the idea that Joseph believed you could extract many words of English from a single character of Egyptian. Interestingly, this thread has provided yet another witness to that notion. Stanley Kimball cites an April 8, 1878 letter from Wilbur Fugate that recalls:

An indirect witness, to be sure, but how likely is it that independent antagonists like Henry Caswall and Wilbur Fugate would concoct the same outlandish idea, one that is also attested by David Whitmer?

Might I suggest that you look up the word "rumour" in a good dictionary. That is how "independent" witnesses repeat the same tales that they are not actually witnesses to. While you are at it, while you have the dictionary open, look at the page. You will notice that each word has up to a paragraph of definition next to it. This is not an "outlandish idea," but simply the way dictionaries work. If Caswall assumed that a hieroglyphic character is the equivalent of a word with a meaning--and he did so assume, as is apparent from his subsequent account of asking Joseph the meaning of a character on one of the papyri--then naturally he could imagine, as you did earlier, that a Psalter could look like a dictionary, with each initial word/character being followed by multiple words or even lines of definition. So when, first in New Orleans and then back in England, he looked at his trick paleographic Greek text, which he had deliberately chosen to make a fool of Joseph, he realised that he could let his imagination run riot as he made up the best story possible about the interview that never happened.

Also, as Craig Foster points out:

While the hypothetical interview is entertaining and informative, pointing out minor discrepancies in Caswall's various published versions of the incident, the narrow "cross-examination" approach hampers a more detailed look at Henry Caswall and his works. Also, while Nibley claims that there was no mention of Caswall's visit in contemporary official or personal journals, the Times and Seasons corroborates Caswall's claims of visiting Nauvoo. The visit, including the presence of a Greek manuscript, was also verified by John Taylor during an 1850 debate in which he participated in France. Therefore, while Nibley correctly identifies the problems with Caswall's story, such as the ridiculous description of the prophet's physical and grammatical characteristics, his defense has problems that need to be further researched and evaluated (Craig L. Foster, "Henry Caswall: Anti-Mormon Extraordinaire," BYU Studies, vol. 35 no. 4, [my copy unpaginated]).

You and Craig both need to go back and look at what Professor Nibley actually argued and concluded. In fact, he was pretty solidly convinced that Caswall had indeed visited Nauvoo, and had walked around with his Psalter under his arm, talking and acting "in a most clerical manner," trying to arouse the curiosity of the populace, so Craig has yet to identify any "problems" with Nibley's argument. In the persona of reporter Mr. Wye, he points out that Caswall only plays fast and loose with the third "day" of his visit--the day of the fictitious meeting--because that's the part he's fabricating. The first two "days," he concludes, actually happened pretty much as Caswall described them.

How can you possibly know, Pahoran, that:

. . . it never happened. He made it up. Entirely.

The strength of your assertion is beyond all warrant from the evidence.

Or are you bearing us your independent testimony?

No, Alf. As I'm sure you realise, my assertion follows inexorably from the evidence.

Is it really plausible to you that not wearing his soutane while giving impromptu street sermons would constitute an effective disguise? That no-one would recognise an Anglican minister just because his collar wasn't on backwards? Do you really believe that he could remember all those long speeches verbatim, even though he gives different ones in each account? Do you really find the hilarious wagon scene the least bit credible? Could Caswall really gut and recast his story of the meeting as many times as he did if there was a real event constraining his creativity? It's all very well for Mr. Foster to try to downplay the different versions as "minor discrepancies," but that is totally counterfactual; if he has actually read the five different accounts, with their wildly differing details, then he must know that the discrepancies are major. Why did Caswall obtain the psalter? Was it to test Joseph's scholarship, or his inspiration? Would a failure to properly identify the book make him an ignoramus, or a false prophet? And since all Joseph was supposed to do was identify the book, did Caswall really tell him up front that it was a Greek Psalter, as he said (in 1842) that he did? If so, why? And why would Joseph not assume that the owner of a book would know at least what it was? Why did the "few words" of Greek (as of 1842) disappear thereafter? Why did the vastly entertaining wagon scene disappear after 1843? Why would Joseph, who had read The Book of Mormon, not know that reformed Egyptian was a Nephite invention, not to be found in any Old World document? We can well understand Caswall not knowing that, but Joseph? Why does Joseph's fantastic hillbilly grammar (in 1842) improve over the years, as Caswall labours to show him, not an ignorant buffoon with no eyes, but a false prophet?

Do you deny that Caswall's tale undergoes a process of "continuous improvement" over the years? Is it really your position that his 1865 account tells the same story as his 1842 account?

Given the freedom with which he embellishes the tale, what "warrant" do you have to conclude that any part of any version is even remotely reliable?

And why would anyone who wants to be seen as interested in the truth do anything so utterly foolish as to quote Caswall's 1842 account as if it were evidence of something, blithely pretending that it had not been discredited and repudiated by its author?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Yes, it is. [And the crowd goes wild as Alf deftly returns Pahoran's blistering cross-court forehand!]

Very amusing. The cases are not parallel, Alf. Your attempt to pretend that they are is transparently manipulative.

Goodness, Pahoran, put that scythe down. What did that poor straw man ever do to you? I am making no such claim.

Really?

I am simply suggesting that Clayton's record should generally be considered pretty reliable given the nearly unique status some of its entries have achieved. (Willard Richards is in the same categoryâ??see D&C 130.) Obviously I'm not suggesting the canonizing has immunized any part of Clayton's record from critical examination.

Pardon me Alf, but in your post #164, you wrote:

Clayton does not offer a verbatim quote, but it is a quote nonetheless. You may impugn the accuracy of that quote (on what rational, coherent basis I cannot imagine, at least for a believer in D&C 131), but it is well beyond the threshold of hearsay, coming from his firsthand knowledge and having an attributed source.

Did you not mean to suggest that anyone who believes in D&C 131 cannot rationally reject anything Clayton wrote? If that is not what you meant to suggest, then would you perhaps care to rephrase that condescending sneer?

But these passages are neatly parallel in their attribution to the Prophet of oracular pronouncements quoted with language suggesting a firsthand hearing.

No. They are not.

As is readily apparent to anyone who can read plain English.

You're a big boy. You should be able to deal with calls for consistency, even from ideological outsiders.

Indeed I can, and I have. I will not, however, tolerate anti-Mormons telling me what my beliefs are supposed to mean to me; more particularly when said argument is in support of a polemical position. I suggest you drop this tactic; it has failed you.

Wow, with all those bolds I really must bow to the force of your argument. Wait, no, I mustn't.

I guess not; not if your interest is in polemical utility rather than truthful history, anyhow.

Note that neither of the above sources has the entirety of Clayton's entry for May 1, 1843. Don refers to Allen's No Toil Nor Labor Fear: The Story of William Clayton, which may have the complete entry, but I haven't seen it. The first ellipsis in Intimate Chronicle may be the equivalent of what ended up in History of the Church 5:372: "I rode out with Lucien Woodworth, and paid him

[Theophilus07]

[And the crowd goes wild as Alf deftly returns Pahoran's blistering cross-court forehand!]

Goodness, Pahoran, put that scythe down. What did that poor straw man ever do to you?

You're a big boy. You should be able to deal with calls for consistency, even from ideological outsiders.

Wow, with all those bolds I really must bow to the force of your argument. Wait, no, I mustn't.

I really enjoyed your exchanges with Pahoran, particularly this one, where I've collected the delicious highlights. They made my day. Made my day? heck, they made me cough coffee out through my nose.

I really look forward to reading more of your posts, particularly dueling with Pahoran which seems to bring out the best in you.

More to the topic, I agree with your well-reasoned position and your persuasive underlying documentation. Over the centuries, the LDS Church certainly displays a tendency to be Kinderhooked (or -- dare I? -- Hofmannhooked), doesn't it? Well, if nothing else, chronic stumbles like that from which the Church never seems to learn at least mean job security for apologists.

Theophilus07

[Pahoran]

I really enjoyed your exchanges with Pahoran, particularly this one, where I've collected the delicious highlights. They made my day. Made my day? heck, they made me cough coffee out through my nose.

I really look forward to reading more of your posts, particularly dueling with Pahoran which seems to bring out the best in you.

Got anything substantive to add Theo, or are you going to stick to obnoxious cheerleading as a way of ensuring you don't get asked to substantiate any assertions?

More to the topic, I agree with your well-reasoned position

Because it suits your prejudices.

and your persuasive underlying documentation.

Which does not support his position. From which, in case you are unable to see past the witty one-liners, he has largely retreated. So he may get 10.0 from the Russian judge, but those less partisan might score him a little lower.

Over the centuries, the LDS Church certainly displays a tendency to be Kinderhooked (or -- dare I? -- Hofmannhooked), doesn't it?

Of course you dare. Exploiting tragedies for cheap polemical points is your idea of class.

Well, if nothing else, chronic stumbles like that from which the Church never seems to learn at least mean job security for apologists.

As you know, LDS "apologists" are not paid, hence that "job security" is about as truthful as anything else you've ever asserted in this forum.

And since you have time to waste on mere backslapping, perhaps you'd care to catch up on some of your outstanding documentation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Log]

Mods,

Can someone be suspended for not supplying documentation after a certain amount of time or posts following the request for such?

[Doctor Steuss]

The only thing that potentially doesnâ??t sit well with me by accepting Claytonâ??s account that Joseph did indeed do a translation of the plates (albeit what appears to be a secular one) is that the translation offered by Clayton most likely needs to be accepted as well.

Perhaps this has already been addressed in the thread (if so, I apologize), but is a secular translation even possible from the plates, or are they nothing more than a hodgepodge of nonsensical symbols with no possible meaning?

[Alf O'Mega]

The cases are not parallel, Alf.

Yes, they are.

I am simply suggesting that Clayton's record should generally be considered pretty reliable given the nearly unique status some of its entries have achieved. (Willard Richards is in the same categoryâ??see D&C 130.) Obviously I'm not suggesting the canonizing has immunized any part of Clayton's record from critical examination.

Pardon me Alf, but in your post #164, you wrote:

Clayton does not offer a verbatim quote, but it is a quote nonetheless. You may impugn the accuracy of that quote (on what rational, coherent basis I cannot imagine, at least for a believer in D&C 131), but it is well beyond the threshold of hearsay, coming from his firsthand knowledge and having an attributed source.

Did you not mean to suggest that anyone who believes in D&C 131 cannot rationally reject anything Clayton wrote? If that is not what you meant to suggest, then would you perhaps care to rephrase that condescending sneer?

No, I meant that those two passages are parallel, firsthand reports of prophetic utterances by Joseph Smith. They are cut from the same cloth.

No. They are not.

Yes, they are.

Note that neither of the above sources has the entirety of Clayton's entry for May 1, 1843. Don refers to Allen's No Toil Nor Labor Fear: The Story of William Clayton, which may have the complete entry, but I haven't seen it. The first ellipsis in Intimate Chronicle may be the equivalent of what ended up in History of the Church 5:372: "I rode out with Lucien Woodworth, and paid him

[T-Shirt]

Still, what we have before us seems to point to Clayton having spent much of the day with the Prophet

Actually, this is not accurate. The only sure thing in the journal entry is that Clayton was with Joseph at 10:00 am to perform a sealing. After that we don't know. We know Clayton was at Joseph's in the "pm", but we do not know if Joseph was present, unless Don can come up with his reference.

and quoting him with direct attribution: "Prest. J. . . says". The simplest and most plausible assumption is that it came from Joseph himself.

Not necessarily. He could have heard this from someone else, the journal entry does not give us enough information. Parley P. Pratt mentions an interpretation of the plates as well, but the details are different. Pratt does not attribute the interpretation to anyone in particular, but he states, "A large number of Citizens have seen them and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city." With this information it is easy to see that any statements as to what Joseph may have said could have been spread around from person to person. Clayton may have heard what he recorded directly form Joseph, but we simply do not have enough information to say for sure.

One may posit scenarios in which the information came through intermediaries (as one may do with the May 17 account as well), but this would be simple ad hoc, ideologically-driven eisegesis.

Actually I have two problems with this statement. First, it seems to me that it is you who are using "ad hoc], ideologically-driven eisegesis. You are the one making a bold assumption, disguised as fact, when you don't have enough information to go on. Second, one cannot treat the May 17th account the same way, since we know for a fact that William Clayton was present with Joseph Smith when he preached the doctrine found in D&C 131. We know from several sources that William Clayton was part of the group that went with Joseph Smith to Ramus and we have Benjamin Johnson's journal entry which reads: "On April 2d and May 16th 1843 the Prophet was at my house with Wm Clayton as scribe at which time was written in answer to questions asked all of sections 130 & 131 Doc & Cov and he then gave to us all keys of knowledge contained in sec 129 & 132 of the both before it was written."

Regards,

T-Shirt

[Alf O'Mega]

Actually I have two problems with this statement. First, it seems to me that it is you who are using "ad hoc], ideologically-driven eisegesis. You are the one making a bold assumption, disguised as fact, when you don't have enough information to go on. Second, one cannot treat the May 17th account the same way, since we know for a fact that William Clayton was present with Joseph Smith when he preached the doctrine found in D&C 131. We know from several sources that William Clayton was part of the group that went with Joseph Smith to Ramus and we have Benjamin Johnson's journal entry which reads: "On April 2d and May 16th 1843 the Prophet was at my house with Wm Clayton as scribe at which time was written in answer to questions asked all of sections 130 & 131 Doc & Cov and he then gave to us all keys of knowledge contained in sec 129 & 132 of the both before it was written."

Your quote from Benjamin Johnson cannot be a journal entry, since it refers to sections 129â??132, which were not introduced until the 1876 version of Doctrine and Covenants. The Johnson recollection is probably dependent on the Clayton journal (and possibly the Willard Richards journal, although more likely the former since he cites Clayton as scribe). I agree with Benjamin Johnson that Clayton is a reliable reporter of the Prophet's words. And we do know for a fact, beyond any reasonable historical doubt, that William Clayton was with Joseph Smith on May 1. Requiring him to preface his quote with "This, with my own ears, I heard the Prophet declare in words of soberness . . ." is ideologically motivated nonsense.

[T-Shirt]

Your quote from Benjamin Johnson cannot be a journal entry, since it refers to sections 129â??132, which were not introduced until the 1876 version of Doctrine and Covenants.

Sorry, I misspoke, the quote comes from a letter written by Johnson May 12, 1903.

The Johnson recollection is probably dependent on the Clayton journal (and possibly the Willard Richards journal, although more likely the former since he cites Clayton as scribe).

No, it is dependant on his own experience. Smith and Clayton were visiting him at his house in Ramus in May of 1843.

I agree with Benjamin Johnson that Clayton is a reliable reporter of the Prophet's words.

As do I.

And we do know for a fact, beyond any reasonable historical doubt, that William Clayton was with Joseph Smith on May 1.

Yes, at 10:00 am to perform a sealing. That is it. We don't have enough information to know how much more time he spent with the prophet on that day. We do know that Joseph left town on horseback for part of the day.

Requiring him to preface his quote with "This, with my own ears, I heard the Prophet declare in words of soberness . . ." is ideologically motivated nonsense.

I am not requiring any such thing. You seem to be getting desperate. I have already stated that he may have heard it from Joseph, but until further evidence comes forth one cannot say for sure. That is an accurate statement. Where do you think Parley P. Pratt got his information? Why do you think Pratt's information and Clayton's vary in details? Keeping in mind that the plates were only in Nauvou for, at the most, five days, and that Pratt mentions "a large number of citizens" who had seen them and compared them to the papyri, is it not possible that Clayton and Pratt and several others saw them at the same time and from this meeting came the reports of what Joseph had said?

T-Shirt

[Alf O'Mega]

No, it is dependant on his own experience. Smith and Clayton were visiting him at his house in Ramus in May of 1843.

Johnson's citation of the exact dates and his knowledge of what Clayton recorded make it likely that his recollection from sixty years later depended for its details on the Clayton journal.

Yes, at 10:00 am to perform a sealing. That is it. We don't have enough information to know how much more time he spent with the prophet on that day. We do know that Joseph left town on horseback for part of the day.

How much time did he need? This afternoon or evening excursion by Joseph is hardly some black hole around which we must cram in an enormous quantity of activity. The amount of information Clayton conveys about Joseph's preliminary translation could have been communicated in a very brief time at any point during the day. And, as I weary of repeating, Clayton attributes the information directly to the Prophet: "Prest. J. . . says . . ." To posit some intermediary for this communication is an unnecessary, ad hoc elaboration.

[Zeta-Flux]

How much time did he need? This afternoon or evening excursion by Joseph is hardly some black hole around which we must cram in an enormous quantity of activity. The amount of information Clayton conveys about Joseph's preliminary translation could have been communicated in a very brief time at any point during the day. And, as I weary of repeating, Clayton attributes the information directly to the Prophet: "Prest. J. . . says . . ." To posit some intermediary for this communication is an unnecessary, ad hoc elaboration.

Alf,

I don't think they have any argument with all of that. It could be as you say. It also could be the case that Clayton incorrectly attributes to Joseph hearsay. Without further evidence both options are possibilities. To either posit there had to be an intermediary, or posit there couldn't have been an intermediary, doesn't follow without further evidence.

I wonder if there are any instances where we know for certain Clayton attributed hearsay to Joseph.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

[Alf O'Mega]

It could be as you say. It also could be the case that Clayton incorrectly attributes to Joseph hearsay. Without further evidence both options are possibilities. To either posit there had to be an intermediary, or posit there couldn't have been an intermediary, doesn't follow without further evidence.

And it could be the case that Clayton's summary of May 17 came through somebody else. We just don't know.

And yet nobody posits an intermediary for that occasion. Since nobody has identified any ideological reason to distance the Prophet from those teachings, no such invention is necessary.