Ink Flow Analysis

[Mortal Man]

Color me not surprised, and yet my respect for John is augmented by his willingness to abandon a once-cherished theory in the face of additional knowledge. I wonder if our critic friends will be so inclined when the KEP Abraham manuscripts they have touted as "simultaneous transcriptions of an oral dictation" are concluded to be something else? Of course, when that happens, the very motivation for John's theory will disappear as well: the assumption that Joseph Smith considered the Sensen document to be the Egyptian text of his translation of the Book of Abraham. Many things are coming into focus that will militate against that assumption, this discussion concerning the insertion at Abr. 1:12 included.

Will,

Would you agree that KEPA Ms. # 1 (page 379 in Nibley's essay) firmly establishes that W. W. Phelps believed that JSP I & XI contained the first chapter of the BoA? https://byustudies.byu.edu/Shop/PDFSRC/11.4Nibley.pdf

If you agree, then where did Phelps get this idea if not from Joseph Smith?

If you disagree, then how was Nibley wrong?

MM

[William Schryver]

Will,

Would you agree that KEPA Ms. # 1 (page 379 in Nibley's essay) firmly establishes that W. W. Phelps believed that JSP I & XI contained the first chapter of the BoA? https://byustudies.byu.edu/Shop/PDFSRC/11.4Nibley.pdf

No, I don't think it "firmly establishes" that, although it could very well be true. In fact, I do believe that Phelps came to the conclusion that there was a connection.

If you agree, then where did Phelps get this idea if not from Joseph Smith?

William Wine Phelps was a very interesting and complex would-be polymath. Understanding the personality and the history of Phelps -- especially at this particular point in time -- will probably become essential to understanding the meaning of large portions of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I would suggest reading some of Sam Brown's recent essays/addresses on the topic. At this point in time, I personally do not believe that Joseph Smith knew what Egyptian text corresponded to his "translation" of the Book of Abraham, anymore than he could have opened the plates of the Book of Mormon and pointed to the leaves containing the text of 3rd Nephi. Joseph Smith did not "translate" in that fashion.

If you disagree, then how was Nibley wrong?

A short question that requires a very long answer -- and one which I'm not willing to attempt to articulate at present. Besides, I believe certain things have to be established much more firmly and formally than they are at present before one can proceed to articulate and defend the argument I envision.

Other than the placement of characters from the Sensen text in the left columns of KEPA #1, #2, and #3, what other evidence would you cite that would connect JSP I/XI with the text of the Book of Abraham?

[Mortal Man]

I personally do not believe that Joseph Smith knew what Egyptian text corresponded to his "translation" of the Book of Abraham, anymore than he could have opened the plates of the Book of Mormon and pointed to the leaves containing the text of 3rd Nephi.

This doesn't jive with the Oct. 17, 1840 account in the Quincy Whig. http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/whig1840.htm#1017

"He then walked to a secretary, on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames, covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted.

These ancient records, said he, throw great light on the subject of Christianity. They have been unrolled and preserved with great labor and care. My time has been hitherto too much taken up to translate the whole of them, but I will show you how I interpret certain parts. There, said he, pointing to a particular character, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham.

It is indeed a most interesting autograph, I replied, and doubtless the only one extant. What an ornament it would be to have these ancient manuscripts handsomely set, in appropriate frames, and hung up around the walls of the temple which you are about to erect at this place.

Yes, replied the Prophet, and the translation hung up with them."

Other than the placement of characters from the Sensen text in the left columns of KEPA #1, #2, and #3, what other evidence would you cite that would connect JSP I/XI with the text of the Book of Abraham?

Are the "1" and "2" superscripts matching the Sensen hieroglyphs with specific words in Abraham 1:1 insufficient evidence of a connection?

[William Schryver]

MM:

This doesn't jive with the Oct. 17, 1840 account in the Quincy Whig. http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/whig1840.htm#1017

"He then walked to a secretary, on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames, covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted.

These ancient records, said he, throw great light on the subject of Christianity. They have been unrolled and preserved with great labor and care. My time has been hitherto too much taken up to translate the whole of them, but I will show you how I interpret certain parts. There, said he, pointing to a particular character, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham.

It is indeed a most interesting autograph, I replied, and doubtless the only one extant. What an ornament it would be to have these ancient manuscripts handsomely set, in appropriate frames, and hung up around the walls of the temple which you are about to erect at this place.

Yes, replied the Prophet, and the translation hung up with them."

In the first place, even if Joseph Smith did point to characters he believed were the signature of Abraham, that doesnâ??t necessarily have anything to do with the text of the book. The location of the alleged autograph on the scrolls is not specified. In any event, I am quite familiar with this report, and I find it unpersuasive on many levels, not the least of which is its dubious reliability as a historically-accurate account.

I don't believe the signature of Abraham appeared on these scrolls which were produced around 200 B.C.

Are the "1" and "2" superscripts matching the Sensen hieroglyphs with specific words in Abraham 1:1 insufficient evidence of a connection?

I donâ??t consider the superscripts in Ms. #3 substantively different, in terms of their import, from the characters in the left column of all three manuscripts. I acknowledge the high probability that whoever prepared these three copies of the â??translationâ? of these verses believed that the characters following the illustration we call Facsimile #1 were the Egyptian source of the BoA.

As I said before:

At this point in time, I personally do not believe that Joseph Smith knew what Egyptian text corresponded to his "translation" of the Book of Abraham, anymore than he could have opened the plates of the Book of Mormon and pointed to the leaves containing the text of 3rd Nephi. Joseph Smith did not "translate" in that fashion.

And, as I have also said elsewhere, I have seen no evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith was involved in whatever project this portion of the KEP represents, nor that he did or would have even been able to inform Phelps and the others as to which Egyptian characters he had â??translatedâ? as the BoA.

[Chris Smith]

In the first place, even if Joseph Smith did point to characters he believed were the signature of Abraham, that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the text of the book. The location of the alleged autograph on the scrolls is not specified.

It was on one of the fragments that had been mounted under glass. That suggests that it was one of the extant fragments, rather than part of a "missing scroll".

In any event, I am quite familiar with this report, and I find it unpersuasive on many levels, not the least of which is its dubious reliability as a historically-accurate account.

What possible reason could you have to doubt the reliability of this account, save that you don't like its content? The account in the Quincy Whig is fairly irenic and utterly believable. The author's suggestion that one of the female mummies was the princess Thermutis, in fact, appears to have been adopted by Lucy Mack Smith; the name shows up in two later eyewitness reports of Mother Lucy's explanation of the artifacts. Surely she would not have accepted a suggestion proffered by a visitor whose intent was perceived to be hostile. In truth, it is perfectly plausible that Joseph Smith identified the signature of Abraham on the papyrus. We do have in the KEP, just as the witness suggested, "a particular character" that is interpreted as the name of Abraham. We also have a report from Josiah Quincy to the effect that Joseph Smith identified the "handwriting of Abraham" and the "autograph of Moses" on the papyrus, which seems to provide at least partial corroboration of the Quincy Whig account. There is no evidence that the Quincy Whig narrative is historically unreliable.

-Chris

[William Schryver]

It was on one of the fragments that had been mounted under glass. That suggests that it was one of the extant fragments, rather than part of a "missing scroll".

What possible reason could you have to doubt the reliability of this account, save that you don't like its content? The account in the Quincy Whig is fairly irenic and utterly believable. The author's suggestion that one of the female mummies was the princess Thermutis, in fact, appears to have been adopted by Lucy Mack Smith; the name shows up in two later eyewitness reports of Mother Lucy's explanation of the artifacts. Surely she would not have accepted a suggestion proffered by a visitor whose intent was perceived to be hostile. In truth, it is perfectly plausible that Joseph Smith identified the signature of Abraham on the papyrus. We do have in the KEP, just as the witness suggested, "a particular character" that is interpreted as the name of Abraham. We also have a report from Josiah Quincy to the effect that Joseph Smith identified the "handwriting of Abraham" and the "autograph of Moses" on the papyrus, which seems to provide at least partial corroboration of the Quincy Whig account. There is no evidence that the Quincy Whig narrative is historically unreliable.

-Chris

Of course, you know that this quote has been the target of criticism, so donâ??t act too surprised, my duplicitous pretended friend.

You also seem to be laboring under the impression that this account is from the editors of the Quincy Whig, and you cite statements from Josiah Quincy independent of the newspaper account. The article was penned by Josiah Quincy, and our readers need to recognize the reasons for which this account is considered unreliable in its details and essentially sensational and inflammatory in its intent:

In the first place, Quincy is reporting in October of a visit made six months previous. There is no evidence that he made notes during his visit; it is clear that he is drawing solely upon his memory for the details he presents.

Secondly, and this is the most important consideration, this account is transparently motivated to paint Joseph Smith in unflattering terms.* When speaking of the people generally, Quincy is mostly charitable, but when his focus turns to Joseph Smith particularly, then we can easily discern his intent to make the Prophet appear either as a frightful tyrant-in-the-making or as a somewhat ridiculous charlatan.

For example, Quincy writes:

Do you understand the Hebrew language, said he, raising his hand to the top of the case, and taking down a small Hebrew grammar of Rabbi Seixas.

That language has not altogether escaped my attention, was the reply.

Note the subtle jab in the insinuation that Joseph Smith is pretending to Hebrew scholarship, and yet his source material is nothing but â??a small Hebrew grammar.â?

Then immediately the account turns to the topic of the Egyptian antiquities:

The embalmed body that stands near the center of the case, said he, is one of the Pharaohs, who sat on the throne of Egypt, and the female figure by it was probably one of the daughters.

Apparently this account of Quincy is the only place where it is reported that Joseph Smith claimed that his mummies were a Pharaoh and his family! Are we to believe that this is only time Joseph Smith ever claimed such a thing? Or is there reason, perhaps, to doubt the accuracy of Quincyâ??s details in this particular account?

Quincy continues with his dry and subtle mockery of the Prophet:

It may have been the Princess Thermutis, I replied, the same that rescued Moses from the waters of the Nile. [One can easily envision Quincyâ??s tongue bulging against his cheek as he writes this.]

It is not improbable, answered the Prophet, but time has not yet allowed fully to examine and decide that point.

â??It is not improbable, answered the Prophet â?¦â?!!! Another quite unlikely statement for Joseph Smith to make, and yet it does serve its purpose to paint him in a ridiculous light.

But to what end?

Quincy continues his account:

You hold in your hands, I observed, a large amount of political power, and your society must exert a tremendous influence, for weal or woe, in the coming elections.

Now weâ??re getting somewhere! Now weâ??ve arrived at the point where Quincyâ??s objectives are unveiled.

According to Quincy, the Prophet replies:

Yes, said he, I know it; and our influence, as far as it goes, we intend to use. There are probably not far short of an hundred thousand souls in our society, and the votes to which we are entitled throughout the Union must doubtless be extensively lost to Mr. Van Buren.

Really??!! Did Joseph Smith and the Church wield that kind of power in April of 1840? They had just been forcibly banished from Missouri a few months previous, arriving in Quincy, IL with little more than the clothes on their backs, and Quincy would have us believe that, just over a year later, when most of them were still living in ramshackle cabins and tents in swampy Nauvoo, that they had the power and influence to sway a presidential election?

Would Joseph Smith have claimed, in 1840, that the membership of the church was in the neighborhood of â??100,000 soulsâ?? Quincy makes no effort to ridicule the claim, when in reality the total membership was no more than about 15,000. Surely Quincy would have known, at the time, that there were nowhere near 100,000 Mormons in the country. And if Joseph Smith had actually made the claim, then why would Quincy not have questioned its accuracy in his account? Is Quincyâ??s memory faulty? Or is he perhaps intentionally exaggerating the membership of the church in order to make his final point?:

Not being disposed in any way to intermeddle in party politics, I made no definite reply; but immediately taking leave we returned to Montrose, abundantly satisfied that the Society over which he presided has assumed a moral and political importance which is but very imperfectly understood. Associated on the religious principle, under a prophet and leader whose mysterious and awful claims to divine inspiration make his voice to believers like the voice of God; trained to sacrifice their individuality; to utter one cry; and to think and act in crowds; with minds that seem to have been struck from the sphere of reason on one subject, and left to wander, like lost stars; amid the dark mazes and winding ways of religious error; these remarkable sectaries must necessarily hold in their hands a fearful balance of political power. In the midst of contending parties, a single hand might turn their influence, with tremendous effect, to which ever side presented the most potent attraction; and should they ever become disposed to exert their influence for evil, which may Heaven prevent, they would surround our institutions with an element of danger more to be dreaded than an armed and hundred eyed police.

[emphasis mine]

Oh, my!

The dreaded Mormon conspiracy to obtain sovereign political power in the United States was first trumpeted by none other than â?¦ the alleged friend of the Mormons, Josiah Quincy!

Indeed, the entire account of his visit is crafted such as to make his final argument that much more potent: this is a significant and growing group of people led by a pretentious and potentially fanatical madman, who, if we fail in our vigilance, just might take over the country and destroy our freedoms!

Is this the dispassionate account of an objective observer? Hardly. Quincy is setting up a propaganda piece from start to finish, and painting Joseph Smith to be simultaneously ridiculous and yet palpably dangerous is his transparent intention.

John Gee has also published criticisms of Quincyâ??s account here: Telling the Story of the Joseph Smith Papyri

* Bear in mind, this account is not to be confused with the much later, and often quoted account written by Josiah Quincy that speaks of the potential historical significance of Joseph Smith. That later account, contained in his book Figures of the Past, was penned in 1883, when age and wisdom had wrought upon him; Joseph Smith was long since dead; and the Mormons he ridiculed in 1840 had long since relocated to the Great Basin and become a formidable, and yet not-so-dangerous-as-he-once-feared people.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

I only have a few minutes, but I hope you don't mind if I offer a few corrections about the Quincy Whig article that Chris cites.

The article [in "the Quincy Whig"] was penned by Josiah Quincy...

You're mistaken.

To my knowledge, the author of the article remains unknownâ??but it certainly wasn't Josiah Quincy (see below).

Let's consider just your first point...

In the first place, Quincy is reporting in October of a visit made six months previous.

You're mistaken on multiple counts.

• Josiah Quincy was introduced to Joseph Smith in mid-May, some five months (not "six") before any October date (but see my next point).
  
• Josiah Quincy arrived in Nauvoo in 1844, the Quincy Whig article was published in 1840â??four years before Josiah's introduction to Joseph.
  
• Even if you hadn't confused the year, the October Quincy Whig wasn't the first time the article was printed. For instance, the news report also appeared in The Friend (Philadelphia) on 25 July 1840 (this corrects Dale Broadhurst's suggestion that the story first ran on 28 July 1840 in The Sun [New York]). The Friend attributes the story to an even earlier publication, the Alexandria Gazette).
  

Moving on...

There is no evidence that [Josiah Quincy] made notes during his visit; it is clear that he is drawing solely upon his memory for the details he presents.

You're mistaken.

Quincy clearly says he composed his narrative about "the City of the Saints" from his contemporary journals (thus the title of his book Figures of the Past from the Leaves of Old Journals) and letters.

That's all I have time for...

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[William Schryver]

I must frankly and quickly acknowledge that Brent is correct on my confusion.

In my haste this morning I conflated the accounts of Josiah Quincy and Charles Adams with the article in the Quincy Whig. It was either too many Quincy's or too many w[h]igs. Or maybe this third teenager is taking more of a toll than I already suspected!

In any case, other than that momentary bout of confusion as to the actual author (my apologies to Chris, also, on that count), I stand by my analysis of the article in the Whig: it is not hardly the unbiased report Chris would have us believe. That was my primary point. The account is rife with propaganda and questionable hearsay reports. In fact, because we don't even really know the author thereof, I submit that it loses even more credibility! We have no way to verify that the author was even in the presence of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo in 1840.

By the way, Brent, been doing any quill pen experiments lately?

[Chris Smith]

I stand by my analysis of the article in the Whig: it is not hardly the unbiased report Chris would have us believe.

Unbiased? No. The author clearly had a negative opinion of Mormon groupthink and the power wielded by the prophet; that I don't deny. But "rife with hearsay and propaganda"? The author's report of the actual things he heard and saw at Nauvoo is quite realistic; it is not sensationalized or overtly mocking like other eyewitness reports of the period. He seems to have been quite self-consciously journalistic.

We have no way to verify that the author was even in the presence of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo in 1840.

Surely you're joking. A great deal of what he reports can be corroborated from other sources.

I hope you were also joking when you called me your "duplicitous pretended friend".

[William Schryver]

CS:

Unbiased? No. The author clearly had a negative opinion of Mormon groupthink and the power wielded by the prophet; that I don't deny.

Iâ??m glad we can agree on that much.

But "rife with hearsay and propaganda"?

Well, the propaganda part is something we already agree on, based on your reply above. I donâ??t think there is any question that the author set out to create a â??bogeymanâ? of Joseph Smith and what was perceived as his rapidly growing political influence. The author (as I have cited above) even engages in gross hyperbole in uncritically advancing the notion that there were 100,000 Mormons in the country. Sure, he claims it was Joseph Smith who provided the census count â?? but thatâ??s the whole point, isnâ??t it? It is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith, in the face of the obvious inaccuracy of the claim, would have asserted that his followers numbered 100,000. There is no example, elsewhere, of Joseph Smith doing such a thing. So I would say we are entirely justified in our suspicion that the author himself is the origin of the gross inaccuracy.

In addition to the exaggeration of Mormon numbers, the author claims that Joseph Smith was claiming that the mummies were none other than a Pharaoh and his daughter. This is the only place where we can read of such a claim being made by the Prophet. What are we then to make of the claim? Do we confidently conclude that the Prophet made this unfounded claim only in the presence of this particular anonymous author? Or is it much more likely that the author himself â?? consistent with his other subtle attempts to paint the prophet in a ridiculous light â?? concocted the entire story of the Pharaoh mummy and the daughter of Pharaoh that took Moses from the Nile? Again, employing standard procedures for historical analysis of sources, this obvious outlier ought to be rejected on the basis of its quite evident eccentricities, not to mention its anonymity.

Indeed, I wish I had been more careful yesterday morning when I mistakenly operated under the confusion of its origin. My case is greatly strengthened by the fact that this author is anonymous. This is evidence that would be summarily rejected in a court of law.

So now we know of at least two elements of the story that have no other corroborating examples in the historical record, and which bear all the standard signs of propagandistic hyperbole, if not outright fabrication. How do we then treat the third example: that Joseph Smith claimed to point out the actual signature of Abraham on the papyri? Again, there are no corroborating evidences of Joseph Smith making this claim in any other time and place. If anything, there is evidence that he understood the actual nature of the record in his possession: he prefaces its ultimate publication with the telling language below:

â?¦ "purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus."

Times and Seasons 3/9 (1 March 1842): 1, cited in History of the Church 4:524, emphasis mine.

Why, if Joseph Smith believes that Abraham himself took pen in hand to write upon these actual papyrus scrolls, does he then take the extraordinary course of using the phrase â??purporting to be the writings of Abraham â?¦ written by his own handâ?? We know that, in other known ancient texts, the phrase â??written by his own handâ? is not meant to convey the idea that the purported author actually prepared the document, but only that the original source being cited was â??written by his own hand,â? or that it was at least commissioned by the putative author. The phrase is knowingly perpetuated by subsequent copyists to give added authority to the text. I submit that the Prophetâ??s employment of the word â??purportingâ? is evidence of his recognition of the true nature of the document he had translated, and thus he would never have made the claim that Abraham himself had created this particular document. Indeed, nowhere besides this anonymous article in the Quincy Whig do we find Joseph Smith reported to have made such a claim. Did some his associates operate under the false assumption that the documents dated to the days of Abraham and his great-grandson Joseph? Perhaps so, but that is irrelevant unless one can demonstrate that their misconception originated with Joseph Smith himself.

Were I a defense attorney in a court of law, and this evidence were being used by the prosecution in an attempt to convict my client of the things written therein, I would, consistent with evidentiary requirements, have this source summarily rejected as anonymous hearsay. No impartial judge in the history of western jurisprudence would deny my request.

And yet you object, saying:

Surely you're joking.

Hardly. Iâ??m not only dead serious, Iâ??m dead right on this particular point. This evidence is all but worthless, whether from a judicial or a historical standpoint.

You continue:

A great deal of what he reports can be corroborated from other sources.

Really?

You mean that Joseph Smith claimed 100,000 followers in 1840?

Or that he was claiming the mummies in his possession to be of a Pharaoh and his daughter?

Or that he claimed that Abraham himself prepared these documents?

Please produce the other sources where these claims can be corroborated. I am certainly not aware of any corroboration for many of the claims made in this Quincy Whig article, unless they are reports that can be demonstrated to derive from the same account.

Finally:

I hope you were also joking when you called me your "duplicitous pretended friend".

I would that it were not so, but it has been reported to me that you have eagerly engaged in Schryver bashing in places where I am not permitted or that I no longer frequent. Thatâ??s too bad, but it is good to know who oneâ??s friends â?? and enemies â?? really are. At any rate, I bear no ill will towards you.

[Pahoran]

Unbiased? No. The author clearly had a negative opinion of Mormon groupthink and the power wielded by the prophet; that I don't deny. But "rife with hearsay and propaganda"? The author's report of the actual things he heard and saw at Nauvoo is quite realistic; it is not sensationalized or overtly mocking like other eyewitness reports of the period.

You've just contradicted yourself, Chris. Tales of "Mormon groupthink and the power wielded by the prophet" are in fact sensationalistic propaganda pieces, and are believed by no-one with any credibility.

In addition to the exaggeration of Mormon numbers, the author claims that Joseph Smith was claiming that the mummies were none other than a Pharaoh and his daughter. This is the only place where we can read of such a claim being made by the Prophet.

Actually that's not quite true. Henry Caswall (1842) also reported that Joseph claimed one of the mummies was a pharaoh, and even named him.

However, since Caswall probably never even met Joseph, it's entirely possible that he got that tidbit from the Whig article under discussion. (AmorLibertas would probably think that constitutes "corroboration." )

Caswall was, after all, an anti-Mormon clergyman, and therefore not overly scrupulous.

Regards,

Pahoran

[William Schryver]

Pahoran:

Actually that's not quite true. Henry Caswall (1842) also reported that Joseph claimed one of the mummies was a pharaoh, and even named him.

However, since Caswall probably never even met Joseph, it's entirely possible that he got that tidbit from the Whig article under discussion. (AmorLibertas would probably think that constitutes "corroboration." )

Caswall was, after all, an anti-Mormon clergyman, and therefore not overly scrupulous.

Which was exactly my point when I wrote:

Please produce the other sources where these claims can be corroborated. I am certainly not aware of any corroboration for many of the claims made in this Quincy Whig article, unless they are reports that can be demonstrated to derive from the same account.

Although I am not certain that Caswall's account (of which I was aware when I stated the above) can be definitively "demonstrated to derive from the same account," the likelihood is high, since there is no other suggestion of such a thing except as originated in the article in the Quincy Whig.

To my knowledge, no demonstrably credible account has Joseph Smith designating a Pharaoh as among the mummies, let alone his daughter -- although Lucy Mack Smith seems to have taken up the Quincy Whig claim in her later promotions of the mummies, which I believe can be reasonably explained in terms of her desire, in the midst of her poverty, to sell tickets to view them.

[Chris Smith]

Well, the propaganda part is something we already agree on, based on your reply above. I donâ??t think there is any question that the author set out to create a â??bogeymanâ? of Joseph Smith and what was perceived as his rapidly growing political influence.

I don't think the author "set out" to do any such thing. I think he reported his perceptions, which he felt were frightening.

The author (as I have cited above) even engages in gross hyperbole in uncritically advancing the notion that there were 100,000 Mormons in the country. Sure, he claims it was Joseph Smith who provided the census count â?? but thatâ??s the whole point, isnâ??t it? It is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith, in the face of the obvious inaccuracy of the claim, would have asserted that his followers numbered 100,000. There is no example, elsewhere, of Joseph Smith doing such a thing. So I would say we are entirely justified in our suspicion that the author himself is the origin of the gross inaccuracy.

Nauvoo-era Mormon publications that claim a membership of one hundred thousand or more include the following issues of the Times and Seasons:

March 1840

Sep. 15 1842

Oct. 15 1842

May 15, 1845

June 15, 1845

Non-Mormon publications, like the New York Sun and Christian Reflector, estimated Mormon numbers at similar levels.

Under such circumstances, it can hardly be considered extraordinary that Joseph Smith would make this claim. The Oct. 1 1843 Times and Seasons similarly leveraged the Mormons' political influence, "We make these remarks for the purpose of drawing the attention of our brethren to this subject, both at home and abroad; that we may fix upon the man who will be the most likely to render us assistance in obtaining redress for our grievances-and not only give our own votes, but use our influence to obtain others, and if the voice of suffering innocence will not sufficiently arouse the rulers of our nation to investigate our case, perhaps a vote from fifty to one hundred thousand may rouse them from their lethargy."

In addition to the exaggeration of Mormon numbers, the author claims that Joseph Smith was claiming that the mummies were none other than a Pharaoh and his daughter.

This is the only place where we can read of such a claim being made by the Prophet. What are we then to make of the claim? Do we confidently conclude that the Prophet made this unfounded claim only in the presence of this particular anonymous author? Or is it much more likely that the author himself â?? consistent with his other subtle attempts to paint the prophet in a ridiculous light â?? concocted the entire story of the Pharaoh mummy and the daughter of Pharaoh that took Moses from the Nile? Again, employing standard procedures for historical analysis of sources, this obvious outlier ought to be rejected on the basis of its quite evident eccentricities, not to mention its anonymity.

You should familiarize yourself more closely with the contemporary sources. That Joseph claimed his mummies were a pharaoh and his wife and daughters is well-known. Take a look at some of the following:

Daily Courier and Economist June 15, 1844.

St. Louis Christian Advocate September 10, 1857.

Daily Whig ( ) Republican March 11, 1868.

Quincy, Josiah. Figures of the Past: From the Leaves of Old Journals. Boston, MA: Roberts Brothers, 1883.

Bill of Sale, signed by Emma and Lewis Bidamon and Joseph Smith III

Charlotte Haven

William I. Appleby journal

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers

I would that it were not so, but it has been reported to me that you have eagerly engaged in Schryver bashing in places where I am not permitted or that I no longer frequent.

I will admit to thinking you misguided and overly credulous, and to often finding your posts personally offensive, Will. You don't exactly make an effort to play nice. But I don't recall engaging in "Schryver bashing," and believe it or not, I do sincerely count you among my friends. You would hardly be the first or the most deeply flawed person I have called "friend". And however little you may reciprocate the sentiment, I will continue to make an effort to engage you in a friendly way. It's a flaw in my personality that I am incapable of feeling genuine personal animosity toward pretty much anyone.

-Chris

[Brent Metcalfe]

Pahoran claims...

However, since Caswall probably never even met Joseph...

... Will chimes in...

Which was exactly my point when I wrote...

Really?

"[P]robably never even met Joseph"?

Then I recommend that the two of you vicariously duke it out with the imbecilic author of this editorial:

It will be recollected by some, that a Mr. Caswell [sic], professing to be an Episcopal minister, came to this city some twelve or eighteen months ago. He had with him an old munuscript [sic], professing to be ignorant of its contents, and came to Joseph Smith, as he said, for the purpose of having it translated. Mr. Smith had a little conversation with him, and treated him with civility, but as the gentleman seemed very much afraid of his document, he declined having any thing [sic] to do with it.

[Times and Seasons 4, no. 23 (Oct. 1843), 364, bold red emphasis added.]

Best wishes,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[William Schryver]

Pahoran claims...

... Will chimes in...

Really?

"[P]robably never even met Joseph"?

Then I recommend that the two of you vicariously duke it out with the imbecilic author of this editorial:

Best wishes,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[PacMan]

You once again demonstrate your incomparable capacity to niggle over the inconsequential details at the periphery of the discussion while studiously avoiding the substance of the real argument. I suppose this explains how you have been able to profess for over a quarter century to have evidence of Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham fraud without ever having produced anything in the way of a substantive case.

Absolutely classic Metcalfe: always long on promises and bold aspirations, but painfully short of delivering on the same.

Unfortunately for you, the game has continued without you, seemingly indifferent to your reluctance or inability to participate in any substantive fashion.

Need I mention that we all will continue to await, with bated breath, the "imminent" publication of your conclusions concerning the KEP and their relationship to the translation of the Book of Abraham?

In the meantime, don't be too surprised when you come to realize that the debate has permanently bypassed your, to date, inconsequential corner.

My old friend Bob Stott had you pegged to a "t" way back in the mid-eighties. His take on you then has proved prescient in every particular.

Hey Will,

I'm right with you through the first paragraph. Calling a spade a spade is OK in my book. But I find it hard to characterize the subsequent any different from your own classification. You are unique to have added a tremendous amount to the dialogue...don't quibble to quibble: in your case the stakes are high. There are too few of us that could step in and pick of the pieces of a fortuitous dialogue gone bust. I'm not one of them.

Best,

PacMan

[Anijen]

Hey Will Im glad your back, I have always enjoyed your posts.

Anijen ~ who has noticed the Brent Metcalfe Chris Smith tag-team is back.

[USU78]

Hey Will Im glad your back, I have always enjoyed your posts.

Anijen ~ who has noticed the Brent Metcalfe Chris Smith tag-team is back.

Indeed, and apparently delighted to accept dreckige nonsense of the Протоколы сионских мудрецов ilk as though it were ( a ) reliable and ( b ) worth the trouble of keeping a straight face whilst citing.

Face it, guys, no outrage is too outrageous so long as it makes JSJr look sinister and Mormons stupid.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Your desperation is more than a tad transparent.

I wish you the best.

Ciao,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Anijen]

Hi Will,

Your desperation is more than a tad transparent.

I wish you the best.

Ciao,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[gtaggart]

Hi Will,

Your desperation is more than a tad transparent.

I wish you the best.

Ciao,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[USU78]

Your desperation is more than a tad transparent.

(

[Lars Umlaut]

This thread was interesting.

Bummer.

[PacMan]

You know what they say about people who live in transparent houses.

...or glass?

[Chris Smith]

Anijen ~ who has noticed the Brent Metcalfe Chris Smith tag-team is back.

I don't understand. Why is it a bad thing that Brent and I are both interested enough in this subject to participate simultaneously in a thread about it?