Ink Flow Analysis

[Chris Smith]

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.

Perhaps you're right, and I am too blinded by my patently anti-Mormon ulterior motives to see why the account published in the Quincy Whig (among other newspapers) qualifies as "filthy nonsense". But if that is the case, the most effective way to help remove my blinders would be a well-reasoned argument targeted at the sources (rather than at my person).

Best,

-Chris

[Mike Reed]

Perhaps you're right, and I am too blinded by my patently anti-Mormon ulterior motives to see why the account published in the Quincy Whig (among other newspapers) qualifies as "filthy nonsense". But if that is the case, the most effective way to help remove my blinders would be a well-reasoned argument targeted at the sources (rather than at my person).

Poetry.

[Anijen]

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?

Not a bad thing to participate. I made the tag team reference because the timing of both yours and Metcalfe's post and the joint critique of Will's analysis appeared to me similar to a tag team. I realized I was not contributing so I also mentioned that.

On that first link was the 100K reference by Joseph? My quick perusal looked as if it was by Parley and three others. But I could be wrong. I did not read further or the other links, though it seems for that time to be an exaggeration (which is the point but was it by JS). Could also this 100K figure be the desirable amount of converts that they wanted to have and bring home and not an actual figure? The way it was quoted could be understood that way?

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:

These links you supplied do not mean Joseph said this or even believed it. Because Bideman wanted to sell them aggrandizing them as Pharaohs would to him bring a higher price. But even then perhaps when he (JS) bought them they were sold to him as pharaoh mummies.

I am out of my area, so I will slide back into the corner as a mere observer. Sorry for the tag team reference I thought it was funny but not so much anymore, it least you know why I wrote it now.

[Chris Smith]

On that first link was the 100K reference by Joseph? My quick perusal looked as if it was by Parley and three others. But I could be wrong. I did not read further or the other links, though it seems for that time to be an exaggeration (which is the point but was it by JS).

It was definitely an exaggeration. The total number of actual members probably wasn't over thirty thousand. But accurate membership statistics also weren't easy to come by, so it was not as obvious an exaggeration as Will seems to imply. Most churches today similarly exaggerate their numbers.

The identity of the authors of unsigned T&S articles is difficult to determine, but JS was definitely the head editor of the Times and Seasons for the May and September 1842 issues, so at the very least we can say he had been exposed to the claim and allowed it to be published with his knowledge and under his direction. I don't think it is at all implausible that Joseph should have claimed a hundred thousand members, and I don't think it necessarily indicates any dishonesty or even deliberate embellishment on his part, either. Wishful thinking is probably a better diagnosis.

These links you supplied do not mean Joseph said this or even believed it. Because Bideman wanted to sell them aggrandizing them as Pharaohs would to him bring a higher price. But even then perhaps when he (JS) bought them they were sold to him as pharaoh mummies.

Probably the most interesting of the sources I cited was William I. Appleby, a believing Mormon who visited Joseph Smith at Nauvoo. Appleby writes,

To day I paid Br Joseph a visit. [...] Viewed four Mummies, one male and three females, brought from Ancient Thebes, in Egypt,- saw the Roll of Papyrus, and the writings thereon, taken from off the bosom of the Male Mummy, being some of the writings of ancient Ab[r]aham and of Joseph, that was sold into Egypt. [...]

A Genealogy of the Mummies, and Epitaphs on their deaths &c &c, are also distinctly. represented on the Papyrus. Which is called the "Book of Abraham" The Male mummy was one of the Ancient Pharaoh's of Egypt, and a Priest, as he is embalmed with his tongue extended, representing a speaker: The females were his wife and two daughters, as a part of the writing has been translated, and informs us, who they were, also whose writings it is, and when those mummies were embalmed, which is nearly four thousand years ago.

The translation of the "epitaphs", by the way, is in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. There two of the mummies are identified as King Onitas and his daughter Princess Katumin. Lucy Smith told Charlotte Haven, too, that the male mummy was King Onitus. An account I didn't mention before that also has Lucy identify the mummy as a king is Robert Horne's 1893 reminiscence.

In any case, the point is that although most of these witnesses are independent of one another, they corroborate each other in important details. Yes, there is some variation and some garbling of details in a few cases. But they are agreed that the prophet's mummy was said-- by him and those close to him-- to have been a pharaoh.

Sorry for the tag team reference I thought it was funny but not so much anymore, it least you know why I wrote it now.

That's fine; I know how easy it is to make a slightly snarky comment that you think is humorous but that other people take offense at, even where none is even remotely intended. I have been guilty of much worse on more than one occasion. So, no offense taken. All my best to you and yours this evening,

-Chris

[Sevenbak]

I'll hook you up with a cup of bootlegged Postum when the time comes.

How does one get bootlegged Postum anymore? Now that they no longer make it, is there a black market for it?

[USU78]

Perhaps you're right, and I am too blinded by my patently anti-Mormon ulterior motives to see why the account published in the Quincy Whig (among other newspapers) qualifies as "filthy nonsense". But if that is the case, the most effective way to help remove my blinders would be a well-reasoned argument targeted at the sources (rather than at my person).

OK, how about this then: let's take XIXth Century Journalism and call it what it is: yellow and tendentious. The filth is found and easily, and is in the tendency to demonize and see plots in/by individuals and groups that ( a ) are already unpopular or ( b ) the editorial staff(s) wish to make unpopular.

"Bob meets Carol in the High Street. Six people witness this."

That's an example of actual reporting.

"Bob, whose nocturnal activities many have long suspected of including gaining entry to Carol's bedchamber whilst her husband lay dying in hospital, brazenly made plans for tonight's adventure with Carol in the High Street in front of half a dozen witnesses."

This is the stuff of which some make so much hay.

The "Mormon insurrection" stuff has been discredited so many times, it ought to be viewed by fairminded folks of being of the same ilk as the Protocols, yet keeps getting treated as though it were both useful and accurate.

Why is that, Chris?

Or is it a reasonable position to take in Post-Prop-8 America that political activism by Mormons is a horror without peer?

[William Schryver]

CS:

[numerous links to obscure documents referring to rumors, innuendo, and spurious claims that made the rounds in early Mormon history]

Under such circumstances, it can hardly be considered extraordinary that Joseph Smith would make this claim.

You might not consider it extraordinary, but that doesnâ??t mean you can demonstrate that Joseph Smith did make such claims. The sources you cite above donâ??t do it. Not a one of them. So why bother posting them unless you somehow think the sheer volume of citations is going to convince those unwilling to dig into the details?

Linking Joseph Smith to the claims I cited above entails a burden of proof that exceeds the capacity of the available evidence.

So please refrain from posting anymore of these â??rabbit holeâ? links, and insinuating that they prove the point. They donâ??t.

No one has ever disputed that wild rumors were circulated, perpetuated, and even eventually commonly believed after Joseph Smith was no longer around to correct anyone. Itâ??s one of the strange eccentricities of early Mormonism that everyone seemed to have at least one favorite story of something extraordinary said or done by Joseph Smith, but which finds no corroboration outside their own rendition of the tale.

Iâ??m sure Lucy Mack Smith found it much easier to sell 25 cent tickets to see the mummy of a Pharaoh than the shriveled corpse of a Ptolemaic-era Egyptian priest. And whoâ??s to blame her? Times were hard. If Iâ??m Joseph, Iâ??m not going to correct her so long as no one is getting hurt and people are still buying tickets.

Again, there is no source that can definitively implicate Joseph Smith in any of these things. It is all insinuation, innuendo, and unattributed rumor. And, of course, you run into no shortage of such things in early Mormon history.

The de riguer line that must accompany every one of these sources you cite, in order to stick them with Joseph Smith, is: No one would have said these things unless Joseph Smith himself taught them.

Right. Every crazy notion that you can read about in early Mormon history originated in the mind and words of Joseph Smith. No one ever dreamed up this stuff on their own.

Of course, that is an unfounded assumption, and believing something like that is the mark of a propagandist, not a historian.

Again, if there is one thing common in early Mormon history, itâ??s that there was an abundance of rumor, innuendo, and crazy ideas that had no relationship to the things Joseph Smith taught the people. He himself repeatedly bemoaned this tendency among the Saints, and struggled with how best to control it. And frankly, he never really did succeed in controlling it. The problem continued among the Saints until the advent of â??correlationâ? during my lifetime, although even correlation has not yet been able to entirely prevent nutty notions from making the rounds of the Mormon grapevine. I guess thatâ??s the natural byproduct of â??personal revelation.â?

In any event, I am supremely disappointed in myself for permitting this discussion to veer so far afield of its original topic: the analysis of the interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12. For now, I have to make a living, but I will return later in an attempt to restore the discussionâ??s original trajectory.

[Chris Smith]

Will,

I'll bow out for the time being, because I'm not really interested in belaboring the obvious. But I will keep an eye out for your next set of thoughts on the thread topic.

-Chris

[Mortal Man]

This thread has gotten off track, but while we're here...

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.

During Zion's Camp, Joseph expressed pleasure with the inflated estimates of their numbers.

So please refrain from posting anymore of these â??rabbit holeâ? links, and insinuating that they prove the point.

I enjoy Chris' "rabbit hole" links. They take me to interesting places where I learn interesting things.

No one has ever disputed that wild rumors were circulated, perpetuated, and even eventually commonly believed after Joseph Smith was no longer around to correct anyone. Itâ??s one of the strange eccentricities of early Mormonism that everyone seemed to have at least one favorite story of something extraordinary said or done by Joseph Smith, but which finds no corroboration outside their own rendition of the tale.

Like Zelph? I suppose Heber C. Kimball, Reuben McBride, Moses Martin and Levi Hancock were all in collusion to feed the rumor mill, and now they are joined by Bushman? If JS never claimed the mummy was Pharoh, did he also never speak of the white Lamanite?

[William Schryver]

CS:

... I'm not really interested in belaboring the obvious.

Well, one man's "obvious" is another man's "absurd."

MM:

If JS never claimed the mummy was Pharoh, did he also never speak of the white Lamanite?

As debatable as the Zelph story is in terms of what he really said during the Zion's Camp march, I consider the evidence for the Zelph account much more compelling than anything suggesting that the stories of the Pharaoh mummy and Abraham's signature on the scrolls originated with Joseph Smith.

Anyway, I gotta run, but I'll try to check in again later ...

[Mortal Man]

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.

My understanding is that John Taylor inserted "purportedly" after receiving a letter from Joseph stating, "the commencement of the Records discovered in Egypt some time since as penned by the hand of Father Abraham." Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Calm]

During Zion's Camp, Joseph expressed pleasure with the inflated estimates of their numbers.

CFR please.

[Calm]

My understanding is that John Taylor inserted "purportedly" after receiving a letter from Joseph stating, "the commencement of the Records discovered in Egypt some time since as penned by the hand of Father Abraham."

CFR again please

[Mortal Man]

CFR please.

RSR p. 240

"Joseph made the same observation to Emma: 'In countinig us the[y] make of our 170 men from five to seven hundred,' he wrote in early June. The exaggeration benefited the Saints, Joseph thought, by intimidating the Jackson County spies."

[Mortal Man]

CFR again please

Perhaps Chris can shed some light on this.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208560642

[Chris Smith]

Perhaps Chris can shed some light on this.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208560642

This letter has been published in H. Donl Peterson's The Story of the Book of Abraham, p. 150. From that book:

The Prophet dictated a statement to Willard Richards to be included in the March 1, 1842, edition of the Times and Seasons, outlining his objectives as editor. He planned to publish various documents in serial form, including the Book of Abraham, for the benefit of the Church. This is his statement:

A considerable quantity of the matter in the last paper was in type before the establishment came into my hands.— Some of which went to press without my review or knowledge and a multiplicitty of business while entering on the additional care of the editorial department of the Times and Seasons must be my apology for what is past.—

In future I design to furnish much original matter which will be found of inestimable advantage to the saints,—& all who desire a knowledge of the kingdom of God,—and as it is not practicable to bring forth the new translation of the Scriptures & various records of ancient date & great worth to this generation in the usual form by books I shall permit specimens of the same in the Times & Seasons as fast as time and space will admit,—so that the honest in heart may be cheered and comforted and go on their way rejoicing,— as their souls become expossed.—& their understanding enlightened by a knowledge of God's work through the fathers in former days as well as what He is about to do in latter days to fulfill the words of the fathers.—

In the present no. will be found the commencement of the Records discovered in Egypt some time since as penned by the hand of Father Abraham which I shall outline to translate & publish as fast as possible till the whole is completed and as the saints have long been anxious to obtain a copy of these records those [who] are now taking this Times & Seasons will confer a special favor on their brethren who do not take the paper by informing them that they can now obtain their hearts.

However, you're mistaken when you suggest that John Taylor inserted the word "purporting". Starting with the March 1 issue of the T&S (in which the first installment of the BoA was published), it was Joseph rather than John Taylor who was the head editor.

Having said that, I should point out that the word "purporting" first appears not in the Times and Seasons publication, but in the printer's manuscript prepared (undoubtedly under Joseph Smith's supervision) by Willard Richards in 1842. (For an image of the first page of this manuscript, see Brigham Young University Studies 11, 1971, p. 389.) The full title for that manuscript reads, "A Translation of Some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus. THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM." This is an expansion of the title from what appears from the textual and historical evidence to be the earliest extant Book of Abraham manuscript, Manuscript 1a (by which I mean to indicate the first half-page or so of KEPA Manuscript 1). In that manuscript the title reads simply, "Translation of the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the Catacombs of Egypt". The first line of the title in the printer's manuscript appears to be intended to clarify how the Book of Abraham came into the prophet's possession, and it is impossible to know whether this contribution came from Richards or from Smith, and what significance they considered the inclusion of the word "purporting" to carry. It may simply have been an attempt at journalistic distance. It should be pointed out, moreover, that a strictly grammatical reading of the title suggests the the papyrus that had come into the prophet's hands itself purported (i.e. claimed) to be the writings of Abraham. In other words, the statement does not at all distance the prophet from the claim that there was at least an apparent record of Abraham written on his papyrus.

The National Intelligencer article I referred to in the thread you linked says,

To the disgrace of the age this wicked imposture flourished. As a specimen of its grossness, we may mention a fact, stated by an extremely respectable gentleman of this city, as one within his personal knowledge. Being on a tour to the West, he visited Nauvoo from curiosity. In the temple he was shown a collection of curiosities, and among them were one or two mummies, which had been imported from Egypt by Joe Smith. The attention of the visitor was called by Smith to the mummy clothes and the writing upon them. "There," said Smith, "that's the hand writing of the patriarch Abraham, and I am the only man that can read it," which he then proceeded to do!

Best,

-Chris

[Mortal Man]

Starting with the March 1 issue of the T&S (in which the first installment of the BoA was published), it was Joseph rather than John Taylor who was the head editor.

I was a little puzzled because of the dated note to subscribers suggesting that Joseph's tenure as editor began with the March 15 issue.

TIMES AND SEASONS.

CITY OF NAUVOO,

TUESDAY, MARCH, 15, 1842.

TO SUBSCRIBERS.

This paper commences my editorial career, I alone stand for it, and shall do for all papers having my signature henceforward. I am not responsible for the publication, or arrangement of the former paper; the matter did not come under my supervision. JOSEPH SMITH.

[William Schryver]

CS:

It should be pointed out, moreover, that a strictly grammatical reading of the title suggests the the papyrus that had come into the prophet's hands itself purported (i.e. claimed) to be the writings of Abraham. In other words, the statement does not at all distance the prophet from the claim that there was at least an apparent record of Abraham written on his papyrus.

Once again proving that one man's "obvious" is another man's "absurd."

I have become convinced that the only way one can only reach a conclusion such as yours above is if you have an "untestimony" of Joseph Smith that is at least as potent as the testimony of the most certain Latter-day Saint.

Alas, I am weary from a long day, and thus feel entirely justified to leave the rest of your post to the judgment of readers more discerning than you are proving to be in your studies of Mormon history.

I've pretty much concluded that this thread is beyond reclamation, in terms of getting back to the topic of its title, but I still have a little to say concerning Metcalfe's vision of "transparent desperation." ( ) So I may very well revisit it once more before leaving it altogether.

It has become amply apparent that Metcalfe basically has nothing to say about this locus at Abr. 1:12 aside from his earlier claim to have replicated it with his quill pen. (Believe me, that story has never yet failed to get a laugh, especially from the document forensics guys.) So, I will finally come through on my old promise to revisit the issue of the long dittograph on page 4 of Ms. #2. It remains, in my estimation, probably the most definitive evidence that Mss. #2 and #3 cannot be what Ashment, Metcalfe, and others have long argued they were.

And by the way, Chris, despite my earlier expressions of doubt as to the possibility, there are several of us who are coming to grips with a pretty solid theory on what Mss. #2, and #3 actually represent, common emendations and all. Combining several textual criticism guys with other document forensics people has produced something approaching a consensus of opinion.

And the best part?

You won't have to wait forever and a day to actually hold the findings in your hands.

[Chris Smith]

I was a little puzzled because of the dated note to subscribers suggesting that Joseph's tenure as editor began with the March 15 issue.

According to the centerplace website, "(Note: there is a typo on page 710 of this issue which incorrectly gives the date as March 15, 1842. A careful review of Volume 3, pages 702-735, shows that the date should have been March 1.)"

Once again proving that one man's "obvious" is another man's "absurd."

I have become convinced that the only way one can only reach a conclusion such as yours above is if you have an "untestimony" of Joseph Smith that is at least as potent as the testimony of the most certain Latter-day Saint.

Are you suggesting that's not the grammatical meaning of that statement?

And by the way, Chris, despite my earlier expressions of doubt as to the possibility, there are several of us who are coming to grips with a pretty solid theory on what Mss. #2, and #3 actually represent, common emendations and all. Combining several textual criticism guys with other document forensics people has produced something approaching a consensus of opinion.

And the best part?

You won't have to wait forever and a day to actually hold the findings in your hands.

That's excellent news. I am entirely looking forward to reading and evaluating their findings and seeing high-res scans of the manuscripts. It will be nice to finally have a coherent production theory from the apologists. And if they convince me that Metcalfe is wrong and Hauglid is right, I will be happy to have the issue resolved!

Best,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

CS:

It will be nice to finally have a coherent production theory from the apologists.

One man's "coherent" is another man's "confused."

In any case, I don't think you'll see a whole lot of apologetics associated with the earliest published output; rather more raw data than nuanced analysis.

... if they convince me that Metcalfe is wrong and Hauglid is right ...

I can, with something approaching 100% certainty, predict that this will never happen. In fact, I predict that -- as has happened with the Spaulding theory -- people will continue to hold to the "simultaneous transcriptions of oral dictation" theory until long after you and I have gone to meet the principals in the matter and found out for ourselves, once and for all.

I've learned that people are funny that way.

Furthermore, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you insinuate that there is anything Metcalfe could be wrong about. Is there anything in the way of an articulated theory that he has ever proposed? Where can I read about it?

[William Schryver]

BM:

Hi Will,

Your desperation is more than a tad transparent.

â?¦

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[gtaggart]

BM:

Transparent desperation – an interesting choice of words. In my experience, desperation is rarely, if ever, transparent. Rather, it most often takes the form of opaque evasions – much like those Metcalfe has stuidiously practiced vis-

[LifeOnaPlate]

eep

[gtaggart]

eep

eep?

[USU78]

BM:

Transparent desperation â?? an interesting choice of words. In my experience, desperation is rarely, if ever, transparent. Rather, it most often takes the form of opaque evasions â?? much like those Metcalfe has stuidiously practiced vis-