Henry Caswall And The Psalter Trick

[Xander]

The format of the psalter as described here is very similar to the format of the GAEL. Comparing the characters on the psalter to the characters on the golden plates also fits Smith's pattern of behavior when he was first shown the papyri and Kinderhook Plates.

Exactly my point, which is the best reason to believe it happened. Of course, I don't expect Pahoran to address this. And true to form, he hasn't. Anyone who has done as much study of the KEP as we have, would immediately know that the similarities here are just too much to be coincidence.

The important question should be obvious. Where else would Caswall get this information that accurately describes Joseph Smith's translation documents? It is a solid "hit" that puts the incident firmly in the category of credible. Even FARMS didn't deny this incident took place. They simply argued that Joseph Smith was acting as a man at the time, and not as a Prophet.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In any event, I see Mola and Zak trying to come up with a "lie" based on their own unfamiliarity with the source document. If he'd read further in his book he would see that Caswall was shown the papyri on two separate occasions, teh second time by Joseph Smith:

That is because that is what it looks like is happening here. There is not a single source outside of Caswall for most of this stuff.

I think the only reason you give it credibility is because it can be used to paint JS in a negative light.

In my real life, if something like this comes from only one source I dismiss it, if it is designed to paint a negative.

For instance "My sis-in-law claims that her dad is drinking beer". I have no evidence other than her word. I dismiss it. I go over to my in-laws all the time. I know them quite well. There is no evidence of beer in the garbage or fridge and I have never smelled it on them. Why should I consider what she claims as valid? Simply because she claimed it?

This appears to be the same thing. IOW this whole thing appears to have been asserted by Caswall with out any other evidence than his say so.

And BTW I think it funny that you guys always give the critics a pass that they would never ever make anything up about JS. That it is all factual.

[Pahoran]

Caswall's description of the vignette matches the image on the papyrus. And there is another account (Sarah Sturdevant, IIRC) that confirms that one of the vignettes was interpreted as "Jacob's ladder".

In other words, Caswall doesn't appear to be making this up.

Again with the false dilemma. Not every falsehood is "making stuff up." Exaggeration, distortion and sloppy note-taking can also be deceptive.

I also think this description is quite plausible, though obviously exaggerated:

"It is a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics." Pointing to the capital letters at the commencement of each verse, he [smith] said: "Them figures is Egyptian hieroglyphics; and them which follows, is the interpretation of the hieroglyphics, written in the reformed Egyptian. Them characters is like the letters that was engraven on the golden plates."

The format of the psalter as described here is very similar to the format of the GAEL. Comparing the characters on the psalter to the characters on the golden plates also fits Smith's pattern of behavior when he was first shown the papyri and Kinderhook Plates.

Whether there was any revelation involved in Smith's interpretation of the Greek Psalter I don't know, but it does seem that he at least made an assessment based on certain physical similarities to other documents he'd worked with in the past.

As we shall see, your assumption about the "format" is a hasty one.

And contrary to your assumption about the authenticity of the report, there are very good reasons to believe that it did not happen as the Downright Reverend says it does.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's pretty much par for the course. Caswall reporting what an anonymous storekeeper told him can be nothing more or less than Joseph Smith's own thoughts, exactly transmitted as if from his own mouth. Nauvoo in 1842 was a "hive mind" and every word spoken by any Mormon about anything to do with Joseph Smith or the Church was Joseph-breathed.

Regards,

Pahoran

I missed this response. I see, this is a really great point. One that I had not considered. So we have here guy "X" claimed that "Y" happened to Caswall. So how does this exactly make JS the guy behind it all?

[Xander]

That is the standard anti-Mormon propaganda, yes.

It is perfectly clear that to you, anything that doesn't tow the party line within your exclusive club of apologets, must be considered "standard anti-Mormon propaganda." You're a broken record.

By the way, I'm still waiting for to you support your claim in the other thread that the "standard" anti-Mormon argument with respect to K-Hook, is that Joseph Smith translated it "by revelation." It is almost as if you just knee-jerkishly say these things because you know of no other way to respond. But I can empathize with you. It wasn't too long ago I felt confined to that same apologetic straight-jacket, where certain responses to criticisms were tactfully used to poison the well. It is unfortunate when that's the only weapon you have in your rhetorical arsenal, while the critics get to pull out pesky things called evidence.

[Chris Smith]

And BTW I think it funny that you guys always give the critics a pass that they would never ever make anything up about JS. That it is all factual.

Far from it. Peter Ingersoll certainly made things up, and so did the Lewis brothers, and so, quite frankly, did many of the Spalding witnesses.

Assessing a witness's personal bias is only one small aspect of evaluating historical testimony. A more important aspect is comparing the testimony to data from other sources. In this case, other sources make many of Caswall's claims appear credible.

[Xander]

That is because that is what it looks like is happening here. There is not a single source outside of Caswall for most of this stuff.

So what? SInce when has this stopped Mormons from believing things based on one account? You have not addressed the evidence.

I think the only reason you give it credibility is because it can be used to paint JS in a negative light.

Then as usual, you're playing to your confirmation bias and not dealing with what's been said. You'd love to be able to dumb-down the critical view as a simple matter of being whatever makes Joseph Smith look bad. I provided numerous reasons to believe it, and neither you nor Pahoran have addressed those reasons.

In my real life, if something like this comes from only one source I dismiss it, if it is designed to paint a negative.

So you dismiss Joseph Smith's first vision which paints a negative view of all other Christian faiths? Didn't think so. Who do you think you're kidding?

For instance "My sis-in-law claims that her dad is drinking beer". I have no evidence other than her word. I dismiss it.

Did she publish on this incident only to have her Dad refuse to deny it? Did she describe verifiable details of his beverage consumption habits? Stop pretending this is an apples/apples comparison because it isn't.

This appears to be the same thing. IOW this whole thing appears to have been asserted by Caswall with out any other evidence than his say so.

There are in fact seven points of evidence supporting the event, and you can't wish them away by refusing to acknowledge them.

And BTW I think it funny that you guys always give the critics a pass that they would never ever make anything up about JS. That it is all factual.

I take it on a case by case basis and make a judgment call based on the evidence. This is very different from the LDS apologetic approach, which is to credit all accounts that make the Prophet look good, and discredit all the accounts that don't, evidence be damned. Again, apologists freely use Caswall's testimony when they think it suits their purposes. And then they try to discredit him using logic that they could never afford to apply to their own faith.

[Pahoran]

Kevin,

your post is replete with redundant size and color codes, which makes quoting it a pain. Just so you know.

Exactly my point, which is the best reason to believe it happened. Of course, I don't expect Pahoran to address this. And true to form, he hasn't. Anyone who has done as much study of the KEP as we have, would immediately know that the similarities here are just too much to be coincidence.

He said, smugly.

Since you are so interested me addressing your silly assumption about format, I shall simply point out that the two-column format with numbered verses starting on new lines is an artifact of the printing press. Medieval manuscript books didn't start each verse on a new line so that the first letter was set off to the left of everything else, as you assume. A new verse would only start on a new line if the previous verse filled up the previous line. In most cases, a new verse would start right after the previous one left off, and would begin with a capital letter, sometimes enlarged or otherwise made more prominent.

I have on file an example of such a manuscript, dating from the 14th century. Now if I can figure out how to embed it in a post, I will post it.

The important question should be obvious. Where else would Caswall get this information that accurately describes Joseph Smith's translation documents?

Except he didn't. Sorry.

It is a solid "hit" that puts the incident firmly in the category of credible. Even FARMS didn't deny this incident took place. They simply argued that Joseph Smith was acting as a man at the time, and not as a Prophet.

Call for references, please.

And if you can bring yourself to make the effort, please try to employ a little civility when you respond.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ares]

Pahoran and Xander... the thread is not about Pahoran and Xander...

Please restrict your comments to the information at hand and not about each other's posting habits.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Caswall's description of the vignette matches the image on the papyrus. And there is another account (Sarah Sturdevant, IIRC) that confirms that one of the vignettes was interpreted as "Jacob's ladder".

In other words, Caswall doesn't appear to be making this up.

Peace,

-Chris

Do you have a reference for this other account? Just curious. I would like to read it.

[Xander]

John Taylor claims he told Caswall that it was Greek:

Concerning Mr. Caswall, I was at Nauvoo during the time of his visit. He came for the purpose of looking for evil. He was a wicked man, and associated with reprobates, mobocrats, and murderers. It is, I suppose, true that he was reverend gentleman; but it has been no uncommon thing with us to witness associations of this kind, nor for reverend gentlemen; so called, to be found leading on mobs to deeds of plunder and death. I saw Mr. Caswall in the printing office at Nauvoo; he had with him an old manuscript, and professed to be anxious to know what it was. I looked at it, and told him that I believed it was a Greek manuscript. In his book, he states that it was a Greek Psalter; but that none of the Mormons told him what it was. Herein is a falsehood, for I told him. Yet these are the men and books that we are to have our evidence from.

Now let's follow the apologetic logic here to dismiss Taylor's account.

1. He was clearly critical of Caswall, calling him a wicked man seeking evil. A man who associates with murderers! (wow, that's harsh, but... evidence?) By that standard, he was biased and had an agenda and cannot be trusted.

2. We only have Taylor's account that this is what happened. Again, as claimed by apologists here, that makes it easy to dismiss.

3. Taylor doesn't claim to have been at the event described by Caswall.

4. Caswall claimed he conversed with Williard Richards about Smith's inability to translate the document. Richards offers no denial of this. Taylor doesn't get to speak for Richards by proxy, and he doesn't claim to either.

This is the same John Taylor who lied about plural marriage for the sake of helping the Church save face.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Xander

[Zakuska]

For instance "My sis-in-law claims that her dad is drinking beer". I have no evidence other than her word. I dismiss it. I go over to my in-laws all the time. I know them quite well. There is no evidence of beer in the garbage or fridge and I have never smelled it on them. Why should I consider what she claims as valid? Simply because she claimed it?

Two more examples:

1) My six year old son brings his friend to grandma's house. They go down into the food storage and find a sack with 2 six packs of beer in them. Next thing we know the rumors fly around the ward that my 80 year old parents drink beer.

2) The same kid sees a coffee pot on my work bench in the garage. Yep Zak drinks coffee alright!

Little did this kid know...

1) My parents watched Oprah and got a recipe for a non toxic bug spray for the Garden. Beer mixed with Dawn dishwashing soap. The bugs are attracted to the beer and the soap gives them disentary. They die of dehidration.

2) I use a coffee pot to cook gold in Agua Regia off old electronics curcuitry.

Simply because this kid claimed it doesn't make it true.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Zakuska

[Chris Smith]

September 1, 1835: "… We went into the upper rooms, saw the Egyptian mummies, the writing that was said to be written in Abraham's day, Jacob's ladder being pictured on it, and lots more wonders that I cannot write here, and that were explained to us." http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/SLeavitt.html Autobiography of Sarah Studevant Leavitt

[sethpayne]

Precisely. Although we have yet to see the discrepancies Pahoran has in mine, I suspect we're in for another trip down double-standard lane. Last time I checked, we only have Joseph Smith's account of his first vision, second vision, third vision, etc.. And yes, his first vision accounts have discrepancies too. His story about the First Vision changed as he needed it to corroborate his theological shifts.\

In any event, I see Mola and Zak trying to come up with a "lie" based on their own unfamiliarity with the source document. If he'd read further in his book he would see that Caswall was shown the papyri on two separate occasions, the second time by Joseph Smith:

But this is really irrelevant.. I asked Pahoran to be sure to address the points I made that undermine his thesis, and of course, he failed to do so as usual.

My take is pretty much the same that has been made on the Mormon Think website which runs through reasons why to believe or disbelieve this incident occurred:

Did this event even happen?

When researching this incident we can't help but wonder if the event actually occurred as there is so little corroborating evidence of the event and the primary source is professor Caswall himself. We list the following things that support and do not support the event:

Evidence against the event

• Grant Palmer's admission that we only have professor Caswall's view of the event.
• Professor Caswall was a Reverend and critic of the Church and was looking to find information to disprove Mormonism and its founder.

Evidence supporting the event

• Professor Caswall's account as shown. As a church we put a lot of stock in the testimony of others so why dismiss someone else's testimony of events so easily merely because it is critical of the church.
• As pointed out by Grant Palmer, it is consistent with Joseph's pattern of rather quickly determining the value and content of unknown documents that were presented to him.
• The newspaper account published the following year.
• The book published by Caswall called Three Days in Nauvoo.
• The artist's depiction of the event published in Three Days in Nauvoo.
• The articles or accounts of the event were never disputed by apostle Dr. Willard Richards or Joseph Smith or by any other church member after the event was published. Surely if Caswall never even talked to Richards, the apostle would have disputed it. And if Caswall did tell apostle Richards about the incident, surely the apostle would have mentioned it to Joseph and if the event never occurred Joseph would have refuted it but he never did.
• The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, formerly known as the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), which is located at Brigham Young University's campus and controlled by the LDS Church, is the largest, most respected pro-LDS apologist organization there is. Although their answers to church historical issues are not gospel doctrine they are often cited in The Ensign and other church publications as highly respected and probable responses to troubling church issues. As mentioned above, the article on the FARMS' website does not question that the event took place but merely agrees with apostle Richards about the significance of Joseph's analysis of the Greek Psalter.

Our conclusion is that the event likely happened in some form as this seems like a lot of trouble for professor Caswall to go to i.e. publishing the story, getting a cartoonist to sketch the event, fabricating a follow-up discussion with an apostle about the incident, etc. Also, if even FARMS does not dispute the event took place then why should we?

Professor Caswall likely exaggerated and perhaps embellished some details like Joseph's grammar to make Joseph seem even more ignorant but based on the above it seems likely that the event probably happened pretty much as Caswall related.

---------------------------------

I think it is funny the double standard folks like Pahoran employ. They use Caswall's testimony for apologetic purposes when they think they can use him to establish a missing papyrus scroll, but anything negative he says must be thrown out the window because he was a critic trying to prove Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Yes, that is what critics tend to do, otherwise they wouldn't be critics. That doesn't make their perfectly legitimate and scientific experiments invalid, just because they happen to yield results that corroborate a hypothesis.

Here are some excerpts from his book detailing the event, along with his experiences with some of the other Mormons in the area:

In order to test the scholarship of the prophet, I had further provided myself with an ancient Greek manuscript of the Psalter written upon parchment, and probably about six hundred years old...

The source Xander mentioned for anyone interested:

http://mormonthink.com/greekweb.htm

Edited August 16, 2011 by sethpayne

[DonBradley]

I also think this description is quite plausible, though obviously exaggerated:

"It is a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics." Pointing to the capital letters at the commencement of each verse, he [smith] said: "Them figures is Egyptian hieroglyphics; and them which follows, is the interpretation of the hieroglyphics, written in the reformed Egyptian. Them characters is like the letters that was engraven on the golden plates."

The format of the psalter as described here is very similar to the format of the GAEL.

Agreed. I believe, though, with you, that Caswall's account is exaggerated.

I have real trouble believing that if Caswall had shown his document and said it was a Greek Psalter, Joseph would have insisted that it was a dictionary of Egyptian. But I would not be surprised in the least if Joseph Smith remarked on the Psalter's similarity of format to the GAEL.

Don

[Chris Smith]

I have real trouble believing that if Caswall had shown his document and said it was a Greek Psalter, Joseph would have insisted that it was a dictionary of Egyptian. But I would not be surprised in the least if Joseph Smith remarked on the Psalter's similarity of format to the GAEL.

That's my take as well.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Agreed. I believe, though, with you, that Caswall's account is exaggerated.

I have real trouble believing that if Caswall had shown his document and said it was a Greek Psalter, Joseph would have insisted that it was a dictionary of Egyptian. But I would not be surprised in the least if Joseph Smith remarked on the Psalter's similarity of format to the GAEL.

Don

Interesting.

Chris,

Thanks for the link for the source I asked about. That too, is interesting.

[Xander]

September 1, 1835: "… We went into the upper rooms, saw the Egyptian mummies, the writing that was said to be written in Abraham's day, Jacob's ladder being pictured on it, and lots more wonders that I cannot write here, and that were explained to us." http://www.boap.org/...s/SLeavitt.html Autobiography of Sarah Studevant Leavitt

Ooops?

So instead of being a reason to doubt his version of the account, it turns out that he was telling the truth about this as well.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ooops?

So instead of being a reason to doubt his version of the account, it turns out that he was telling the truth about this as well.

For the record, hopefully no straw men will be constructed, I only take issue with

Do you see those four little figures? Well, those are the four quarters of the earth. And do you see that big dog looking at the four figures? That is the old Devil desiring to devour the four quarters of the earth. Look at this person keeping back the big dog. That is Christ keeping the devil from devouring the four quarters of the earth. Look down this way. This figure near the side is Jacob, and those are his two wives. Now do you see those steps?" "What," I replied, "do you mean those stripes across the dress of one of Jacob's wives?" "Yes," he said, "that is Jacob's ladder." "That," I remarked, "is indeed curious."[/]quote] And the episode of the Greek psalter.

I have no doubt that Caswall's story contains many facts. The only thing that has been settles so far is the idea of Jacob's ladder. The rest to me looks made up or exaggerated. Chris so far is the only one that has offered a tiny bit that corroborates Caswall's story.

And your claim "it turns out that he was telling the truth about this as well." is not factual. If I only quoted "I have an issue with "that is Jacob's ladder." you would have totally one this debate.

[Xander]

I have no doubt that Caswall's story contains many facts. The only thing that has been settles so far is the idea of Jacob's ladder. The rest to me looks made up or exaggerated. Chris so far is the only one that has offered a tiny bit that corroborates Caswall's story.

And your claim "it turns out that he was telling the truth about this as well." is not factual. If I only quoted "I have an issue with "that is Jacob's ladder." you would have totally one this debate.

Did you write this with a straight face? Much has been substantiated in Caswall's account, i.e. his claim that Joseph Smith showed him the papyri has been subsequently proved, despite insinuations he was lying. Pahoran has tried to reinvent what he said in order to fabricate some kind of discrepancy, which should tell us all we need to know about the apologetic desperation involved here. You have yet to show us anything that has been definitively shown to be false. You don't get to assert that it is all false until we prove every single detail is true. All you have all your suspicions of anti-Mormon deceit, which we already knew. That alone isn't evidence that he is lying about the details that prove Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

[Chris Smith]

Mola,

Take a look at the vignette. You will see that Caswall's description is basically corroborated. There is a creature that looks like a big dog, there is a person standing behind him. There are four little figures, which incidentally are the same four figures JS interprets as the four quarters of the earth in Facsimile 2. Caswall's interpretation of the big dog as the "old Devil desiring to devour the four quarters of the earth" sounds very much like Cowdery's interpretation of the same vignette: "the kingdoms of the world over which Satan is represented as reigning." As far as I can tell, there's nothing historically problematic about Caswall's description here.

Peace,

-Chris

[Ares]

Did you write this with a straight face?

Please eliminate these kinds of throw away statements. It sounds arrogant and insults other posters.

[Xander]

Alright.

But just so the audience knows, it is interpreted as arrogance and insult when someone asserts that nothing else has been shown to be true in Caswall's statement, when in fact the discussion covering this topic over the course of a week, has clearly demonstrated a number of points that Caswall got correct. Apologetic suspicions of deceit are being shot down one after the other. I don't like repeating myself, but the apologists keep reasserting things that aren't correct, which misleads the readers into thinking we haven't established things that have been established. If people have nothing of substance to add to this discussion, or they can't keep up with what's been said, then these kinds of statements serve only as diversions.

It is why some threads become 50 pages when only a few pages should suffice.

[Zakuska]

As they say on CARM: "A broken clock is right twice a day."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

Take a look at the vignette. You will see that Caswall's description is basically corroborated. There is a creature that looks like a big dog, there is a person standing behind him. There are four little figures, which incidentally are the same four figures JS interprets as the four quarters of the earth in Facsimile 2. Caswall's interpretation of the big dog as the "old Devil desiring to devour the four quarters of the earth" sounds very much like Cowdery's interpretation of the same vignette: "the kingdoms of the world over which Satan is represented as reigning." As far as I can tell, there's nothing historically problematic about Caswall's description here.

Peace,

-Chris

Perhaps Kevin can learn a thing or two from your posting style. I concur that this is plausible.

Next point?