Caswall And His Psalter, Part 2

[Pahoran]

It is time to look at what the Reverend Mr. Henry Caswall M.A., Vicar of Figheldean and Rural Dean of Salisbury, has to say for himself about his Psalter Trick. Some of his writings are available online, so I shall rely upon them as much as is possible.

In the 1842 "Revised and Enlarged" edition of his book The City of the Mormons, or Three Days at Nauvoo, we find the following narrative:

From this moment I determined to visit the stronghold of the new religion, and to obtain, if possible, an interview with the prophet himself. Accordingly, on Friday evening, April 15th, I embarked on board the fine steamer "Republic," bound, as her advertisement assured me, "for Galena, Dubuque, and Prairie du Chien." I had laid aside my clerical apparel, and had assumed a dress in which there was little probability of my being recognized as a "minister of the Gentiles." 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.

[....]

Perceiving a respectable-looking store (or shop), I entered it, and began to converse with the storekeeper. I mentioned that I had been informed that Mr. Smith possessed some remarkable Egyptian curiosities, which I wished to see. I added that, if Mr. Smith could be induced to show me his treasures, I would show him in return a very wonderful book which had lately come into my possession. The storekeeper informed me that Mr. Smith was absent, having gone to Carthage that morning; but that he would return about nine o'clock in the evening. He promised to obtain for me admission to the curiosities, and begged to be permitted to see the wonderful book. I accordingly unfolded it from the many wrappers in which I had enveloped it, and, in the presence of the storekeeper and many astonished spectators, whom the rumour of the arrival of a strange book had collected, I produced to view its covers of worm-eaten oak, its discoloured parchments, and its mysterious characters. Surprise was depicted on the countenances of all present, and, after a long silence, one person wiser than his fellows, declared that he knew it to be a revelation from the Lord, and that probably it was one of the lost books of the Bible providentially recovered. Looking at me with a patronizing air, he assured me that I had brought it to the right place to get it interpreted, for that none on earth but the Lord's Prophet could explain it, or unfold its real antiquity and value. "Oh," I replied, "I am going to England nest week, and doubtless I shall find some learned man in one of the universities who can expound it." To this he answered with a sneer, that the Lord had chosen the weak things of the world to confound the mighty; that he had made foolish the wisdom of this world; and that I ought to thank Providence for having brought me to Nauvoo, where the hidden things of darkness could be revealed by divine power. All expressed the utmost anxiety that I should remain in the city until the prophet's return. The storekeeper offered immediately to send an express eighteen miles to Carthage, to hasten the return of Joseph. This I declined, and told him that my stay in Nauvoo must be very limited. They promised to pay all my expenses, if I would remain; and assured me that they would ferry me over the river as often as I desired it, free of charge; besides furnishing me with a carriage and horses to visit the beautiful prairies in the vicinity. At length I yielded to their importunities, and promised that if they would bring me over from Montrose on the following morning, I would exhibit the book to the prophet. They were very desirous that I should remain at Nauvoo during the night. but as I had my fears that some of the saints might have a "revelation," requiring them to take my book while I slept, I very respectfully declined their pressing invitation. They then requested to know where I was staying in Montrose. I mentioned the name of the gentleman who had received me into his house; upon which they used the most violent language against him, and said that he was their bitter enemy and persecutor, that he was as bad as the people of Missouri, and that I ought not to believe a word that he said. They again pressed me most earnestly not to return to Montrose; but I continued firm, and expressed my intention of hearing both sides of the question.

[....]

They all looked upon it as something supernatural, and considered that I undervalued it greatly, by reason of my ignorance of its contents. It was in vain I assured them that a slight acquaintance with Greek would enable any person to decipher its meaning. They were unanimous in the opinion that none but their prophet could explain it; and congratulated me on the providence which had brought me and my wonderful book to Nauvoo.

[....]

On landing at Nauvoo, I walked with the Doctor along the street which I mentioned before as bordering on the strand. As I advanced with my book in my hand, numerous Mormons came forth from their dwellings, begging to be allowed to see its mysterious pages; and by the time I arrived at the prophet's house, they amounted almost to a crowd. I met Joseph Smith at a short distance from his dwelling, and was regularly introduced to him by the storekeeper. I had the honour of an interview with him who is a Prophet, a Seer, a Merchant, a "Revelator," a President, an Elder, an Editor, and the Lieutenant-General of the "Nauvoo Legion." He is a coarse, plebeian, sensual person in aspect, and his countenance exhibits a curious mixture of the knave and the clown. His hands are large and fat, and on one of his fingers he wears a massive gold ring, upon which I saw an inscription. His eyes appear deficient in that open and straightforward expression which often characterizes an honest man. His dress was of coarse country manufacture, and his white hat was enveloped by a piece of black crape as a sign of mourning for his deceased brother, Don Carlos Smith, the late editor of the "Times and Seasons." His age is about thirty-seven. [by his own account in the "Times and Seasons," Joseph Smith was born in the town of Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont, (U.S ) on the 23rd of December, 1805.] He led the way to his house, accompanied by many elders, preachers, and other Mormon dignitaries. On entering the house, chairs were provided for the prophet and myself, while the curious and gaping spectators remained standing. I handed the book to the prophet, and begged him to explain its contents. He asked me if I had any idea of its meaning. I replied, that I believed it to be a Greek Psalter; but that I should like to hear his opinion. "No he said; "it ain't Greek at all, except, perhaps, a few words. What ain't Greek, is Egyptian; and what ain't Egyptian, is Greek. This book is very valuable. It is a dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics." Pointing to the capital letters at the commencement of each verse, he 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 engraved on the golden plates." Upon this, the Mormons around began to congratulate me on the information I was receiving. "There," they said; "we told you so--we told you that our prophet would give you satisfaction. None but our prophet can explain these mysteries." The prophet now turned to me, and said, "This book ain't of no use to you, you don't understand it." "Oh yes," I replied; "it is of some use; for if I were in want of money, I could sell it for something handsome."

[....]

"But what will you sell it for?" said the prophet and his dignitaries. "My price," I answered, "is higher than you would be willing to give." "What price is that?" they eagerly demanded. I replied, that I would not sell it to them for many hundred dollars. They then repeated their request that I should lend it to them until the prophet should have time to translate it, and promised me the most ample security; but I declined all their proposals. I placed the book in several envelopes, and as I deliberately tied knot after knot, the countenances of several among them gradually sunk into an expression of great despondency. Having exhibited the book to the prophet, I requested him in return to show me his papyrus, and to give me his own explanation, which I had hitherto received only at second hand. He proceeded with me to his office, accompanied by the multitude. He produced the glass frames which I had seen on the previous day; but he did not appear very forward to explain the figures. I pointed to a particular hieroglyphic, and requested him to expound its meaning. No answer being returned, I looked up, and behold! the prophet had disappeared. The Mormons told me that he had just stepped out, and would probably soon return. I waited some time, but in vain: and at length descended to the street in front of the store. Here I heard the noise of wheels, and presently I saw the prophet in a light waggon, flourishing his whip and driving away as fast as two fine horses could draw him. As he disappeared from view, enveloped in a cloud of dust, I felt that I had turned over another page in the great book of human nature.

The Mormons now surrounded me, and requested to know whether I had received satisfaction from the prophet's explanation. I replied that the prophet had given me no satisfaction, and that, on the contrary, he had proved his own ignorance most effectually. They wished to know my own religious opinions. I informed them that I had been educated in the Church of England, to which I was conscientiously attached.

Just a few points on this story:

1. Note how Caswall handles his "wonderful book." He waves it under everyone's noses from the outset. He insists "that a slight acquaintance with Greek would enable any person to decipher its meaning." He informs us that he has specifically aquired it for a specific purpose, namely, "in order to test the scholarship of the prophet."
   
2. But how does he carry out the test? He tells Joseph up front what it is! "I replied, that I believed it to be a Greek Psalter; but that I should like to hear his opinion." What sort of a test is that? He's saying, in effect, "This book is a Greek Psalter. What do you think it is?"
   
3. Why would Joseph not expect Caswall to know what his own book was, even if it was in a language he couldn't read?
   
4. The wagon scene is pure theatre. We shall discuss it in more detail in a future post.
   

Some years ago, Hugh W. Nibley (boos and hisses from the peanut gallery) demonstrated a number of important discrepancies in the various versions of Caswall's story. They get bigger and better as time goes along, but we shall confine ourselves to those that occur between the narrative quoted above and its first edition. Although these versions were published only a few months apart, there are several significant changes, and they are most numerous in the one paragraph describing his meeting with Joseph Smith.

1842: As I advanced with my book in my hand, numerous Mormons came forth from their dwellings, begging to be allowed to see its mysterious pages; and by the time I arrived at the prophet's house, they amounted to a perfect crowd.

1843: As I advanced with my book in my hand, numerous Mormons came forth from their dwellings, begging to be allowed to see its mysterious pages; and by the time I arrived at the prophet's house, they amounted almost to a crowd.

A fairly minor change, of course; the "crowd" merely shrinks a bit. But that signals to an alert reader that Mr Caswall had gotten carried away in his first version. The next change is a little less easily explained:

1842: "I had not an opportunity of observing his eyes, as he appears deficient in that open, straightforward look which characterizes an honest man."

1843: "His eyes appear deficient in that open and straightforward expression which often characterizes an honest man."

If Caswall was telling the truth in 1842, how could he know how Joseph's eyes "appear," since he "had not an opportunity of observing" them?

But then again, is it really likely that Caswall could be "regularly introduced" to Joseph and not see his eyes?

But to make up for the missing detail of the invisible eyes, we now have a cute little detail added in:

1843: "His white hat was enveloped by a piece of black crape as a sign of mourning for his deceased brother, Don Carlos Smith...."

Why did Caswall not mention Joseph's white hat in 1842? Well, as it happens Joseph is supposed to have just stepped out of his front door to greet his visitor, so under the "hat etiquette" then prevailing, he would not have been expected to put a hat on. But between the first and second editions of his book, John C. Bennett had published his expose, The History of the Saints, in which he talked about Joseph's supposedly famous "old white hat." Nor was this the only detail Caswall lifted from Bennett and offered as a personal experience. In his other book The Prophet of the Nineteenth Century also published in 1843, Caswall wrote:

"As the City Council had passed an ordinance, under which any stranger in Nauvoo speaking disrespectfully of the prophet might be arrested and imprisoned without process, the author deemed himself happy in leaving Nauvoo unmolested, after plainly declaring to the Mormons that they were the dupes of a base and blaspheming impostor."

However there was no such ordinance; Bennett made it up. Caswall wasn't to know that, of course, but then he certainly wasn't experiencing a personal emotional reaction to an ordinance he hadn't even read about yet!

1842: "He led the way to his house, accompanied by a host of elders, bishops, preachers and common Mormons."

1843: "He led the way to his house, accompanied by many elders, preachers, and other Mormon dignitaries."

This change is only a few words, but it is very important. Lots of Mormons are "elders," and a quite a few could be called "preachers," but only bishops are bishops; of which there were only about four or six (going from memory) in Nauvoo at the time? Why do they disappear between 1842 and 1843? If they were really there in 1842, why would they disappear? Could it be that bishops are a bit too specific, and Caswall wanted to make his story as hard to check up on as possible?

Much has been made, in the other thread, about Caswall conversing with Willard Richards. But did he? Nobody but Joseph Smith is actually named in Caswall's account. There is someone he meets a number of times and describes merely as "a Mormon doctor;" but if it really was Willard Richards, why not identify him by name? And if not by name, then why not call him "a Mormon apostle?" Wouldn't that be more impressive than a mere doctor?

If it was Willard Richards, then that would seem to be of a piece with Caswall losing his bishops. He didn't want anything in his book that would be too easy to check up on.

That will do for now. More will be forthcoming, so any triumphant crowing about what Pahoran has "failed to address" will be premature, as it usually is.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited August 16, 2011 by Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

By this standard, the First Vision is doomed. Let's skip ahead to the part where you show that "the different accounts contradict each other in essentials."

[DonBradley]

Umm, if even a slight acquaintance with Greek would have shown one that the psalter was Greek, what do we do with the fact that Joseph Smith studied Greek?

Or was this not till later?

Don

[Calm]

Umm, if even a slight acquaintance with Greek would have shown one that the psalter was Greek, what do we do with the fact that Joseph Smith studied Greek?

Or was this not till later?

Don

Final nail in the coffin: Joseph studied Greek

Joseph Smith's journal reveals that Joseph actually studied a bit of Greek well before Caldwell's visit.

On 20 November 1835, Oliver Cowdery returned from New York and brought Joseph a Hebrew and Greek lexicon.^[5] On 23 December 1835, Joseph wrote that he was "at home studying the greek Language..."^[6]

Joseph was probably not a great scholar of Greek. But, Caldwell's claim that he was able to deceive Joseph with a Greek psalter seems pretty implausible when we realize that Joseph had studied a book on Greek. Joseph would not even need to be able to read the psalter to recognize Greek letters—learning such letters is the first task of any Greek student.

This, coupled with the other absurdities in Caswall's tale, and his efforts to make Joseph appear as a simple ignorant yokel make his tale even more unlikely.

http://fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Translator/Greek_psalter

[DonBradley]

Nice.

[Calm]

Nice.

I live to serve.

[Zakuska]

Hebrew and Greek were being taught in the temple and later moved to an Adult school.

The Hebrew class was taught from January 26 to March 29, 1836 by Joshua Seixas.

[Zakuska]

However there was no such ordinance; Bennett made it up. Caswall wasn't to know that, of course, but then he certainly wasn't experiencing a personal emotional reaction to an ordinance he hadn't even read about yet!

1842: "He led the way to his house, accompanied by a host of elders, bishops, preachers and common Mormons."

1843: "He led the way to his house, accompanied by many elders, preachers, and other Mormon dignitaries."

This change is only a few words, but it is very important. Lots of Mormons are "elders," and a quite a few could be called "preachers," but only bishops are bishops; of which there were only about four or six (going from memory) in Nauvoo at the time? Why do they disappear between 1842 and 1843? If they were really there in 1842, why would they disappear? Could it be that bishops are a bit too specific, and Caswall wanted to make his story as hard to check up on as possible?

Not only that but "common Mormons" are removed from the 1843 account. It is a simple feat to be able to fool Mormon peóns in the streets of Nauvoo.

Caswel needed his story to sound larger than life in which he not only fooled the backwoods Redneck Yokel Ole' Jo Smit. But... Mormon church officials as well.

dignitary: A person considered to be important because of high rank or office

He was tightening his scope.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Zakuska

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

http://fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Translator/Greek_psalter

Total ownage. Well that settles it for me. It looks like there is a great deal of evidence of Caswall making stuff up.

Let me guess JS was such a genius that he was able to get tons of stuff right, yet he was such an idiot because he could not tell something was greek even though he studied it. Is this the idiot/savant theory at work?

It will be interesting to see were this thread goes.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

By this standard, the First Vision is doomed. Let's skip ahead to the part where you show that "the different accounts contradict each other in essentials."

This appears to be a deflection. We already talked about how this and the first vision are not analogous.

So this guilt by association is a "failure out the gate".

[Chris Smith]

Umm, if even a slight acquaintance with Greek would have shown one that the psalter was Greek, what do we do with the fact that Joseph Smith studied Greek?

Joseph recognizing the text as Greek doesn't exclude the possibility that he took the capital letters to be Egyptian. Especially since the capital alpha appears in the Alphabet and Grammar.

[Chris Smith]

This appears to be a deflection. We already talked about how this and the first vision are not analogous.

Pahoran asserted that they're not analogous, but thus far, I'm not seeing it.

[Anijen]

Joseph recognizing the text as Greek doesn't exclude the possibility that he took the capital letters to be Egyptian. Especially since the capital alpha appears in the Alphabet and Grammar.

It does not exclude it but it seems to be a stretch, a big stretch. To have studied Greek and then say the capital letters from a Greek word is Egyptian seems to me far fetched.

[oremites]

Pahoran asserted that they're not analogous, but thus far, I'm not seeing it.

These are the reasons, for me, that these are not analogous.

Nobody believes in the First Vision simply because they're able to reconcile the differences between the versions. Even if all accounts were identical, it would be no reason to believe it happened. People believe because of the outside corroborating evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet: The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, etc., etc., etc. Most importantly, we have the witness of the Holy Spirit confirming the truth of the First Vision and of Joseph's calling as a prophet.

The outside corroborating evidence of the Psalter story consists of what? Anything?

[Xander]

The apologetic here requires Joseph Smith to be familiar enough with Greek to be able to recognize and translate Greek documents, but there is really no reason to believe this was the case. What do we really know anyway?

According to the account in his journal, he "studied Greek," meaning he probably browsed through his lexicon for at least one day that we know of? That's the extent of what we can conclude here. FAIR calls this a "coffin nail" seriously? Whoever wrote that article wasn't familiar enough with Joseph Smith's concept and understanding of ancient languages. As Chris pointed out, no one has dealt with the fact that the GAEL illustrated Joseph Smith's understanding that Greek and Egyptian overlapped. This seems pretty ridiculous for someone who has truly "studied Greek," but that is precisely how Joseph Smith viewed the language.

I'm still waiting to see where Pahoran discredits Caswall's account by pointing to discrepancies in details. All I've seen so far is a smoke and mirror show by an inexperienced magician. I see him giving himself plenty of room to recreate what was actually said in his "in other words" summary. For example, in order to create some kind of discrepancy, Pahoran takes Caswall's statement to mean he told Joseph Smith he knew for certain what the book was, and then he asks us how likely it was that Joseph Smith would really believe he didn't know what his own book was. To refute this all one needs to do is go to the Chandler incident. Those were his papyri, but he didn't know what they were.

Also Pahoran "quotes" Caswall as saying “This book is a Greek Psalter” but that isn’t what he said at all. He said that he “believed” it to be a Greek Psalter, and he wanted Joseph Smith’s opinion on the matter. He worded the statement in a truthful manner. Of course he knew what it was, but he told Joseph Smith what he only “believed” it to be, to see if he could invoke some kind of correction from the Prophet. The plan worked beautifully, as Joseph Smith never passed up the opportunity to show off his ability to translate documents, especially those that were clearly of ancient origin. A six hundred year old Psalter is precisely the kind of document he would be interested in. Pahoran also insists thaat Caswall’s reference to a “Mormon doctor” means he didn’t really meet any Mormon doctor because he would have referenced him by name. Why must this be true if he didn’t know or remember his name? Pahoran doesn’t say, he just asserts that it causes a problem for his account, when in fact this is precisely what one might expect from someone passing through a town full of Mormons.

It should be pointed out that I predicted days ago that Pahoran would not deal with the evidence in favor of crediting this account, and so far I have been proven correct. This silliness of dissecting every word with scrutiny while spreading it across two threads, acting as if this is some kind of monumental refutation, is almost funny. No, I take that back. It is funny. And Pahoran refuses to back up his claims while he keeps asking me to CFR for ever little thing I have said, including my claim that a FARMS review never denied the incident took place. Hard to believe Pahoran isn't familiar with this review. In any event, here it is:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=513

Notice that the author is smart enough not to take Nibley for granted, leaving it up to the readers to look up his dismissive arguments and make their own judgment call. He also concedes the incident took place along with the claim that the “doctor” referred to Williard Richards. Even if he never saw Richards, the account explicitly referenced Richards, and Richards must have known it. And yet, Richards never responded, knowing perfectly well Caswall’s account referred to him. This would have been an easy way to discredit his entire account, but the Church instead used the proven liar John Taylor to come up with some story to contradict it. Just another point of evidence Pahoran has not addressed.

[Xander]

Pahoran asserted that they're not analogous, but thus far, I'm not seeing it.

They're not. There are enough discrepancies in the essentials to reasonably conclude the first vision didn't happen at all. The same is not true of the Caswall incident. We know it happened. Only some of the details are really under dispute. By comparison, we don't know Joseph Smith had a vision, and we can easily dismiss his account using precisely the same methods the apologists have employed in order to dismiss Caswall. We only have one person's account, and the story gradually morphed as it was recanted time and time again.

[Pahoran]

By this standard, the First Vision is doomed.

While all the most fanatical anti-Mormons no doubt agree with you, that is off-topic for this thread.

Let's skip ahead to the part where you show that "the different accounts contradict each other in essentials."

You can skip in any direction you like. There is plenty more to come.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

They're not. There are enough discrepancies in the essentials to reasonably conclude the first vision didn't happen at all.

Thank you for bearing your un-testimony. But that is off-topic for this thread. Start another one if you want to discuss this.

The same is not true of the Caswall incident. We know it happened. Only some of the details are really under dispute. By comparison, we don't know Joseph Smith had a vision, and we can easily dismiss his account using precisely the same methods the apologists have employed in order to dismiss Caswall. We only have one person's account, and the story gradually morphed as it was recanted time and time again.

That's as truthful as anything you've ever asserted. Joseph never once recanted his First Vision account, let alone "time and again."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thank you for bearing your un-testimony. But that is off-topic for this thread. Start another one if you want to discuss this.

That's as truthful as anything you've ever asserted. Joseph never once recanted his First Vision account, let alone "time and again."

Regards,

Pahoran

Amen. Some people are so transparent.

[Chris Smith]

There are enough discrepancies in the essentials to reasonably conclude the first vision didn't happen at all.

I disgree. Memory is a very malleable thing, and the fact that a person tells a story differently on different occasions doesn't mean there's no event behind it. It just means we have to be a little more critical in the process of figuring out what exactly was the shape of that event. (For example, it's seriously problematic to draw hard and fast theological conclusions about the nature of the godhead from the First Vision, given the discrepancies in the accounts about who appeared and how many personages there were.)

I've always thought the criticism of the First Vision on the basis of the differences in the accounts was really lame. Sort of like the OP this thread.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Pahoran]

I'm still waiting to see where Pahoran discredits Caswall's account by pointing to discrepancies in details.

Yes, patience is not one of your virtues.

All I've seen so far is a smoke and mirror show by an inexperienced magician.

Then I'm sure you can give me some tips. Xander, I'm going to formally request that you somehow find a way to restrain yourself from making these kinds of spiteful snipes or else remove yourself from the thread.

I see him giving himself plenty of room to recreate what was actually said in his "in other words" summary. For example, in order to create some kind of discrepancy, Pahoran takes Caswall's statement to mean he told Joseph Smith he knew for certain what the book was, and then he asks us how likely it was that Joseph Smith would really believe he didn't know what his own book was. To refute this all one needs to do is go to the Chandler incident. Those were his papyri, but he didn't know what they were.

No, Pahoran doesn't "take" Caswall's statement to mean any such thing. Pahoran takes Caswall's up-front identification of the book to completely undermine his supposed "test" of the Prophet's "scholarship."

Also Pahoran "quotes" Caswall as saying “This book is a Greek Psalter” but that isn’t what he said at all.

No, Pahoran actually quotes Caswall in Caswall's own words, and then Pahoran summarises his description of the conversation.

He said that he “believed” it to be a Greek Psalter, and he wanted Joseph Smith’s opinion on the matter. He worded the statement in a truthful manner. Of course he knew what it was, but he told Joseph Smith what he only “believed” it to be, to see if he could invoke some kind of correction from the Prophet. The plan worked beautifully, as Joseph Smith never passed up the opportunity to show off his ability to translate documents, especially those that were clearly of ancient origin. A six hundred year old Psalter is precisely the kind of document he would be interested in.

"The plan worked beautifully" in Caswall's account, because Caswall is controlling the story in retrospect; so of course it worked perfectly.

Pahoran also insists thaat Caswall’s reference to a “Mormon doctor” means he didn’t really meet any Mormon doctor because he would have referenced him by name.

"Pahoran also insists" on no such thing. Pahoran points out that, just like absolutely everyone else in Caswall's story with the exception of Joseph Smith and his mother, the "Mormon doctor" is not named, and so any identification of him is necessarily conjectural. Pahoran also wonders why, if the "Mormon doctor" really was an LDS apostle, Caswall wouldn't describe him as such.

Why must this be true if he didn’t know or remember his name? Pahoran doesn’t say, he just asserts that it causes a problem for his account, when in fact this is precisely what one might expect from someone passing through a town full of Mormons.

You may have a point there. Bigots frequently see the targets of their bigotry as faceless groups rather than as people.

It should be pointed out that I predicted days ago that Pahoran would not deal with the evidence in favor of crediting this account, and so far I have been proven correct.

No. You have not.

This silliness of dissecting every word with scrutiny while spreading it across two threads, acting as if this is some kind of monumental refutation, is almost funny. No, I take that back. It is funny. And Pahoran refuses to back up his claims while he keeps asking me to CFR for ever little thing I have said, including my claim that a FARMS review never denied the incident took place. Hard to believe Pahoran isn't familiar with this review. In any event, here it is:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=513

Notice that the author is smart enough not to take Nibley for granted, leaving it up to the readers to look up his dismissive arguments and make their own judgment call. He also concedes the incident took place along with the claim that the “doctor” referred to Williard Richards.

But the Ashurst-McGee review isn't about the Psalter incident, it's about Grant Palmer's magnum opus. You cannot expect a reviewer to chase every rabbit down every burrow.

Even if he never saw Richards, the account explicitly referenced Richards, and Richards must have known it.

That's false. The account referred to an unnamed "Mormon doctor." How does that "explicitly reference" Willard Richards? Was he the only "Mormon doctor" in town? Here is how Caswall describes him:

The following morning (Tuesday, April 19th), a Mormon arrived with his boat and ferried me over to Nauvoo. A Mormon doctor accompanied me. He had obtained, I was told, a regular diploma from a medical school as a physician: but since the Mormons generally prefer miraculous aid to medicine, it is probable that his practice is somewhat limited.

If the "Mormon doctor" was also a Mormon Apostle, why would Caswall trouble himself to worry about the extent of his medical practice?

(Mormon disdain for medicine is yet another "fact" that he got wrong, incidentally.)

And yet, Richards never responded, knowing perfectly well Caswall’s account referred to him.

CFR that Richards knew "perfectly well Caswall’s account referred to him."

This would have been an easy way to discredit his entire account, but the Church instead used the proven liar John Taylor to come up with some story to contradict it.

Xander, I must ask you again to make the supreme effort to restrain yourself from slinging your favourite "proven liar" epithet at better and more honest men than you. Especially in an assertion that is itself provably false.

Here are the facts of the matter: the Church did not "use" John Taylor for any such thing; a bunch of English clergymen in France challenged Elder Taylor to a debate. They brought up Caswall's Psalter trick. It was in response to them that John Taylor recounted his recollection of Caswall and his trickery.

I have seen your nasty attempt to smear and discredit John Taylor's account. At an appropriate time, I shall demonstrate that his recollection is clearly reliable.

Just another point of evidence Pahoran has not addressed.

Your crowing is premature. Yet again.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

How the Trap was Sprung: the Great Wagon Scene.

In Caswall's 1842-43 narrative, The City of the Mormons, or Three Days at Nauvoo, we find the following:

"But what will you sell it for?" said the prophet and his dignitaries. "My price," I answered, "is higher than you would be willing to give." "What price is that?" they eagerly demanded. I replied, that I would not sell it to them for many hundred dollars. They then repeated their request that I should lend it to them until the prophet should have time to translate it, and promised me the most ample security; but I declined all their proposals. I placed the book in several envelopes, and as I deliberately tied knot after knot, the countenances of several among them gradually sunk into an expression of great despondency. Having exhibited the book to the prophet, I requested him in return to show me his papyrus, and to give me his own explanation, which I had hitherto received only at second hand. He proceeded with me to his office, accompanied by the multitude. He produced the glass frames which I had seen on the previous day; but he did not appear very forward to explain the figures. I pointed to a particular hieroglyphic, and requested him to expound its meaning. No answer being returned, I looked up, and behold! the prophet had disappeared. The Mormons told me that he had just stepped out, and would probably soon return. I waited some time, but in vain: and at length descended to the street in front of the store. Here I heard the noise of wheels, and presently I saw the prophet in a light waggon, flourishing his whip and driving away as fast as two fine horses could draw him. As he disappeared from view, enveloped in a cloud of dust, I felt that I had turned over another page in the great book of human nature.

The Mormons now surrounded me, and requested to know whether I had received satisfaction from the prophet's explanation. I replied that the prophet had given me no satisfaction, and that, on the contrary, he had proved his own ignorance most effectually. They wished to know my own religious opinions. I informed them that I had been educated in the Church of England, to which I was conscientiously attached.

Right, so here is the sequence of events:

Joseph has just identified Caswall's Psalter as "a dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics," announced that it is "very valuable" and offered to buy it from him. Caswall refuses, wraps it up in its many envelopes and puts it away. Note, please, that this is the last anyone ever sees of it. From this point on, it disappears from history, from historiography and from the category of evidence.

Caswall then changes the subject and asks to see the papyri. He's already seen them on the previous day, but he asks, so Joseph shows him. Caswall points to a hieroglyphic and asks Joseph what it means. He looks around, but Joseph has gone. He waits for a while, gets tired of waiting and leaves the building. There he sees Joseph in a wagon, "flourishing his whip" as he lashes his horses to a lather in order to avoid explaining that hieroglyphic symbol to the fellow who couldn't read Greek!

The story is pure theatre. It shows Joseph completely losing his head and fleeing in utter terror from the brilliant scholar whose plan had worked so beautifully.

But did it really happen like that?

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

Some would have us disbelieve that Joseph and other members of the Church in Nauvoo didn't know enough about Greek to be able to tell that that the letters in the Greek Psaltster were Greek and not Egyptian, even though they had been informed that it was a Greek Psaltser.

In addition to the evidence presented earlier in the thread regarding Joseph's study of Greek during the late fall and early winter of 1835, we have this notation in Joseph journal, dated Wednesday, November 23rd: "In the forenoon, at home, studying the Greek language. And also waited upon the brethren who came in, and exhibited to them the papyrus." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.25, p.344) If Joseph is studying Greek, and then displaying the Egyptian papyri, what are the chances that he wouldn't be able, at that time, to tell the difference between Greek and Egyptian?

Early the following year this general description of Church's educational program in Kirtland (of which Joseph was a participant) was described as follows: "during the week the "Kirtland High School is taught in the attic story, by H. M. Hawes, Esq., professor of the Greek and Latin languages. The school numbers from one hundred and thirty-five to one hundred and forty students, divided into three departments--the classic, where the languages only are taught; the English department, where mathematics, common arithmetic, geography, English grammar, writing, and reading are taught; and the Juvenile department, the last two having each an assistant instructor. The school commenced in November, and on the first Wednesday in January the several classes passed a public examination in presence of the trustees of the school, parents and guardians, and their progress in study was found of the highest order." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.33, p.474) One can reasonably conclude from this that, for the most part, the progress of the 135 students, including Joseph, their progress ub study of Greek, among other things, was of the highest order.

Then, in late May of 1843, shortly after the Kinderhook incident, Joseph spoke to "the definition of the word 'Mormon.' It has been stated that this word was derived from the Greek word mormo. This is not the case. There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon. Let the language of the book speak for itself."(History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.21, p.398)

Evidently, Joseph was aware enough then of the difference between Greek and Reformed Egyptian to know that there wasn't any Greek on the golden plates.

Finally, later that June, Willard Richards and Wilford Woodruff recorded in their journals a discourse by Joseph Smith that, in parts, spoke to the translation of two Greek words, froze and Hades (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.22, p.425), thus showing a working familiarity with Greek.

In August of that year Joseph indicated that he knew enough about Greek to know that "Shiloam, which signifies righteousness and peace: as it is, it is nothing--neither Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French, nor any other language." (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.28, p.554)

There is also this footnote: "The omitted part of the letter is a paragraph in which are quoted a number of foreign phrases from Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, German, Portuguese and other tongues; which are in no way germane to the subject discussed, but are a mere pedantic display, doubtless admitted, in this instance, in a spirit of humor by President Smith, as an offset to Bennett's assumption of so lofty an intellect--a mind of "so mathematical and philosophical a cast--that the divinity of Moses," etc., made no "impression" on him. The display of foreign phrases was doubtless the work of W. W. Phelps, who had some smattering knowledge of languages, which he was ever fond of displaying. Unfortunately similar displays were injected into President Smith's appeal to his native state-Vermont; and his paper, "Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States." These injections were also doubtless the work of Elder Phelps, who was one of the Prophet's clerk and amanuenses when the documents named above were prepared. Because these displays of pedantry mar these documents, and are in no way germane to the subjects of which they treat, and are not really the work of President Smith they are omitted from the papers referred to as published in this HISTORY, the omission being indicated by ellipses signs." (History of the Church, Vol.6, p.75, Footnotes)

Chris may tell you that these letters, written by Phelps on Joseph's behalf, were read over and approved by Joseph. This suggest that both Joseph and Phelps were familiar enough with Greek to include it in Joseph's correspondences.

Granted, this historical data doesn't definitively settle the question of Joseph's knowledge of Greek, but I think it can reasonably be thought to weigh in favor of him having sufficient awareness of Greek as to have not have mistaken it for Egyptian.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 16, 2011 by wenglund

[Ares]

I have already warned some posters... Any more personal jabs or insulting remarks will be met with suspension.

Keep on topic (and the topic is not the posters or their posting habits.)

Thank you.

[Xander]

Yes, patience is not one of your virtues

I'm very patient, but even a patient man has limits. In which coenrer of your universe does it say you should make critics wait day after day for a simple CFR? You've retreated from the "standard" anti-Mormon argument, and now you're wasting my time by dragging a very simple topic into multiple threads without producing a single significant point that lives up to your promise. I think we can recognize this for what it really is.

Then I'm sure you can give me some tips. Xander, I'm going to formally request that you somehow find a way to restrain yourself from making these kinds of spiteful snipes or else remove yourself from the thread.

For someone who has recently called me a liar, and accused me of "championing" deceivers, these are strange interpretations of my rather innocuous statements that simply expect you to back up your claims without all the ... "presentation."

No, Pahoran actually quotes Caswall in Caswall's own words, and then Pahoran summarises his description of the conversation.

You "quote" Caswall as saying something he didn't say. I googled the phrase you put in quotes and the only place it exists on the entire internet is on this page. I'm not interested in how you choose to interpret Caswall's statement. I know he never told Joseph Smith he knew for a fact that it was a Greek Psalter, so your argument deriving from this is based in a faulty premise.

"The plan worked beautifully" in Caswall's account, because Caswall is controlling the story in retrospect; so of course it worked perfectly.

I'll have to keep reminding you that you have not produced any reason to believe Caswall is lying about this. We have LDS accounts admitting he showed up with a Greek Psalter. We know this. It is corroborated by both "sides." And yet we have no LDS account telling us Joseph Smith correctly identified it as a Greek Psalter. We knew Caswall's plan, and we know he managed to execute it as planned. The results are what's under dispute, and so far you have not provided any reasonable doubt here. Either Caswall is telling the truth or Joseph Smith knew enough Greek to identify the book correctly. Yet, no LDS account of the event says the latter happened.

In fact, John Taylor only accused Caswall of lying on one point, in that "no Mormon" was able to identify the document. According to Taylor, he was the one Mormon who could, so therefore Caswall was lying on that point. But he doesn't say anything about his encounter with Joseph Smith, probably because he wasn't there when it happened. But in any event, among these two individuals, John Taylor is the one we know to be a liar for sure, so if anyone is going to make a judgment call here, then this one should be easy. The Times and Seasons published on the matter 18 months later, conceding that Caswall met with Joseph Smith and discussed the Psalter. Nowhere does the T&S claim Joseph Smith properly identified the book. Instead, it tries to absolve him by saying he wanted nothing to do with it because Caswall appeared to be afraid of the book. Right! As if that's a credible version of what happened.

"Pahoran also insists" on no such thing. Pahoran points out that, just like absolutely everyone else in Caswall's story with the exception of Joseph Smith and his mother, the "Mormon doctor" is not named, and so any identification of him is necessarily conjectural. Pahoran also wonders why, if the "Mormon doctor" really was an LDS apostle, Caswall wouldn't describe him as such.

Yes, just as it would be conjectoral for me to refer to Barack Obama when speaking of the President of the United States. But you still haven't addressed thr problem of no denial taking place from any of the individuals who met with Caswall. We know the incident took place, and we know other Mormons met with him. So why is it that none of them who were there, have come forward to reject his version of the incident? The only logical explanation is because what he said is true in that they managed to deal with it in their minds using the same logic Richards employed: he was just a fallible man when he was asked to identify the Psalter.

You may have a point there. Bigots frequently see the targets of their bigotry as faceless groups rather than as people.

Which easily explains your propensity for invoking the anti-Mormon boogy-man around every corner of your arguments?

No. You have not.

Then show me where you have dealt with them. What, no post number this time?

But the Ashurst-McGee review isn't about the Psalter incident, it's about Grant Palmer's magnum opus. You cannot expect a reviewer to chase every rabbit down every burrow.

Sorry, I expected minimal research. It would have taken two seconds to google the Maxwell Institute to see what I was referring to. The point is no one has challenged the identification of the doctor, except you and possibly Nibley.

That's false. The account referred to an unnamed "Mormon doctor." How does that "explicitly reference" Willard Richards? Was he the only "Mormon doctor" in town? Here is how Caswall describes him:

Uh, maybe because he was the town doctor?

If the "Mormon doctor" was also a Mormon Apostle, why would Caswall trouble himself to worry about the extent of his medical practice?

What on earth would being an "Apostle" mean to someone like Caswall? You forget that back then an apostle was an everyday Joe on the street. He wasn't someone you had the honor of seeing twice a year via satellite. And was being an apostle something an apostle back then would brag about to a passing tourist? Maybe, maybe not, but your point, whatever it is, amounts to irrelevant conjecture that does nothing to discredit Caswall's account.

CFR that Richards knew "perfectly well Caswall’s account referred to him."

OK, fine. He knew at the very least that he was the probable candidate (especially if he was the one he spoke with, but even if he wasn't) and he could have easily spoken up to absolve the Prophet. But it really doesn't matter, since no "doctor" ever came forth to discredit the account. You still have not dealt with the fact that Caswall's account provides us with the standard apologetic response to Joseph Smith's failed attempts to reveal truths. How is it he was aware of this standard apologetic response, unless the incident involved one?

Xander, I must ask you again to make the supreme effort to restrain yourself from slinging your favourite "proven liar" epithet at better and more honest men than you. Especially in an assertion that is itself provably false.

So let me get this straight. You can call me a liar for well-poisoning purposes, associate me with all sorts of incredulous people I've never met, but I am not permitted to point out that a proven liar is one of your key witnesses? And yes, it is proved, which s why you refuse to contest it.

Here are the facts of the matter: the Church did not "use" John Taylor for any such thing; a bunch of English clergymen in France challenged Elder Taylor to a debate. They brought up Caswall's Psalter trick. It was in response to them that John Taylor recounted his recollection of Caswall and his trickery.

And yet Taylor could produced nothing to vindicate the prophet. Nowhere did he accuse Caswall of making up the incident with Joseph Smith, when one would expect it. After all, that is the meat of the criticism; that it was Joseph Smith who failed to properly identifiy the Psalter. Taylor doesn't dispute this, which is very significant.

I have seen your nasty attempt to smear and discredit John Taylor's account. At an appropriate time, I shall demonstrate that his recollection is clearly reliable.

Pointing out that one of your key witnesses has lied to help Joseph Smith save face, is entirely relevant as it weighs on his credibility in this situation. Besides, you've been accusing Caswall of lying from the start, with zero evidence other than your axiomatic belief that all critics are liars and deceivers. At least I have a reasonable basis that Taylor was a man who was willing to lie if he thought it meant helping Joseph Smith. This was clearly one of those times.