Caswall And His Psalter, Part 2

[Zakuska]

To add some light to wades excellent post:

Wilford Woodruff was also attending Kirtland High School.

The school attended by wilford woodruff on this occasion was

the

kirtland high school which met in the attic story of the temple under the

tutelage of HM hawes esq professor of greek and latin the school numbers

from one hundred and thirty five to one hundred and forty students

divided into three departments 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.

joseph smith history of the church of jesus christ of latter day

saints ed B H roberts 7 vols salt lake city deseret book co 1948

224477447755 hereafter designated HC

One student at the kirtland high school reported studying

Whelphey's compend of history, kirkham grammar, olney s geography and jacobs

latin grammar the school was in three departments the first or juveniles

were taught by Elias Smith the more advanced by marcellus F cowdery and

professor haws taught the classics memoirs of Geo A smith appp 87-

88 MS HDC

Hmmm... yep thums Marmun teachers didn't knowed a lick of Greek, Latin or Hebrew!

So lets list the teachers who taught Joseph and other Backwoods Yokel Marmuns Greek Latin and Hebrew.

H.M Hawes Esq.

Eliuas Smith

Marcellus F Cowdery

Rab. Joshua Seixas

Edited August 16, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

George a Smith recorded:

In the following winter [1835-1836] I attended the “School of the Prophets” with

the Prophet and most of the first elders of the Church, where was first taught the

Lectures on Faith, as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, and grammar was

taught by Elder William E. McLellin. I also attended an evening class in geography

in which I rapidly acquired the elements of that study, which inspired in me a thirst

for history and other reading. (pp. 21-22).

Milo Andrus (1814-1875) confirmed the study of grammar: “On our return to

Kirtland from the mission in the East, I went to school in Kirtland, studied grammar,

and then studied Hebrew under Professor [Joshua Seixas] of New York” (p. 5).

Yup thems Marmus didn't knowed Greak, Hebrew or Egyptian letters from the back side of a barn!

Edited August 16, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Xander,

I don't see Pahoran questioning wether the Caswall incident ever happend. I see him questioning wether it happend as Caswall described it.

RE: John Taylor

His well-educated father, for example, was proficient in Greek and Latin, two important languages for deeper study of Christianity, even in our day. By his parents, young John “was thoroughly trained in the catechism and prayers of the Church of England, into which he had been baptized as an infant. [His] father and mother also exemplified in their conduct the religious principles they sought to inculcate in [their] son.Throughout his childhood and teenage years, he exhibited a deep reverence for Deity and “dreaded nothing so much as offending him.

http://rsc.byu.edu/a...acher-atonement

Yup John Taylor din't knowed a lick a Greak eader! And couldn't distinguish Greek from Egyptian letters.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Zakuska

[Pahoran]

Reply to Xander, part 1.

Snip off-topic waffle about another thread.

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.

It's not a quote; it's a paraphrase. Only a rather un-alert (or tendentious) reader would mistake it for a quote, since it directly follows the actual quote.

That you may have no further excuse to misrepresent this fact, I have edited the post to remove any possible ambiguity that might be exploited by false accusers.

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.

There's nothing faulty about it. Caswall claimed that he had aquired the Psalter, and sought a meeting with Joseph, for a specific purpose: to test Joseph's scholarship. The test was to get him to correctly identify the Psalter. And then he goes ahead and gives Joseph the answer along with the question?

I am going to come back to that point later, because it is important.

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.

No we don't "know" any such thing. That is anti-Mormon wishful thinking.

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.

As you know, that is a textbook example of the fallacy of the false dilemma. Those are not the only two possiblities.

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.

Exactly.

But in any event, among these two individuals, John Taylor is the one we know to be a liar for sure,

He was more honest than you are. But in fact if you read the OP, you will discover that we know for sure that Caswall was a liar.

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.

Caswall left Nauvoo for the last time in April of 1842. He quotes for his authority a newspaper published four months later, which was the first anyone anywhere heard about that so-called ordinance, which was yet another anti-Mormon falsehood.

Did your client feel happy to be able to leave Nauvoo unmolested in April 1842, Xander?

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.

Your attempt at pre-emptive well-poisoning is noted. We will come back to the Times and Seasons article in due course.

End of part 1.

[Pahoran]

Reply to Xander, part 2

Yes, just as it would be conjectoral for me to refer to Barack Obama when speaking of the President of the United States.

That's not even remotely analogous, and you know it. Obama is the one and only President of the United States; your client merely reported conversing with a "Mormon doctor."

But you still haven't addressed thr problem of no denial taking place from any of the individuals who met with Caswall.

That's not a "problem," it's merely an argument from silence.

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?

Who were they, Xander?

What on earth would being an "Apostle" mean to someone like Caswall?

A clergyman who thought every word penned by an apostle was holy writ? Gawrsh, I dunno!

One might think that he would be uniquely aware of the importance of such a title.

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?

It's something that seems to get mentioned when apostles are intoduced to other visitors at that period.

Maybe, maybe not, but your point, whatever it is, amounts to irrelevant conjecture that does nothing to discredit Caswall's account.

It calls into question the assumption that the "Mormon doctor" was actually Willard Richards. Which, incidentally, doesn't attempt to do anything to "discredit Caswall's account." As we shall see, Caswall does that himself. It simply draws attention to the fact that the identification of the "Mormon doctor" as Willard Richards is itself "irrelevant conjecture" that provides no basis for any further arguments; not even anything as weak as an argument from silence.

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)

Why? What makes you assume that your client's books, all published in England, were actually read by anyone in America?

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.

And why should they?

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?

Overplaying your hand is always a risk, Xander. You keep sneering that Joseph's famous dictum, "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such," is the "standard apologetic response." It happens that your client had known about Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints for some years, since he wrote about them in his 1839 book, The American Church. He could have heard about that "standard apologetic response" anywhere and worked it into his book as a personal experience, just like he did with Joseph's "white hat" and the fictitious Nauvoo ordinance. Or he might indeed have heard it in some connection or other during his "three days" (actually about twelve hours altogether) in Nauvoo.

So let me get this straight. You can call me a liar for well-poisoning purposes,

That is not the case.

associate me with all sorts of incredulous people I've never met,

You embrace their ideology.

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.

That's false, like many of your assertions. I simply refuse to chase every red herring you choose to drag across my path. If you're going to misrepresent that as some kind of tacit consent, then so be it.

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.

Indeed it is, but not for the reasons you think.

As you said yourself (and I took the liberty of highlighting it, above) Taylor probably wasn't in the room. The fact that he doesn't simply invent a story that vindicates Joseph, when he supposedly had every motive to do so, demonstrates that he wasn't just making stuff up to suit the exigencies of the moment. Rather, he was clearly reporting events truthfully as he remembered them.

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.

No, this clearly wasn't.

This is my thread, Xander. To relieve me of the distressing responsibility of pointing out that everyone you have ever called a liar is a better and more honest person than you are, I ask you to refrain from calling people liars in this thread. Your gratuitous attempt to pre-emptively discredit John Taylor has failed.

I suggest you accept that and move on.

We will discuss his evidence later in the thread. I further suggest you wait and see what conclusions I draw from it, instead of trying to poison the well against him.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Further to the discussion about Willard Richards: I am unable to find any explanation for why Mark Ashurst-McGee assumed he was Caswall's "Mormon doctor." However, it has been pointed out on another thread that Robert D. Foster was a doctor and was in Nauvoo in April 1842. He seems just as likely a candidate as Willard Richards.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Loran Blood]

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

Well actually, no. The "discrepancies" in the various first vision aren't "discrepancies" at all, but simply the leaving out or addition of various details from version to version. There are no logical contradictions or inconsistencies between them, but simply fragments of the entire experience in which some things are present and others omitted from version to version.

By comparison, we don't know Joseph Smith had a vision

You don't know Joseph Smith had a vision. Let's be accurate in our use of language, and not speak for the experiences/perceptions of others.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Pahoran]

The Great Wagon Scene, Part II.

Caswall's first version of the Great Wagon Scene is shown above.

In it, 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?

As already mentioned, Caswall did not tell one story about his alleged meeting with Joseph, he told six. The first two were editions of his first book, The City of the Mormons, or Three Days at Nauvoo. The Great Wagon Scene is the same in both of those. The third version is found in a book with the title: The Prophet of the Nineteenth Century; or, The Rise, Progress, and Present State of The Mormons, or Latter-day Saints: to which is appended An Analysis of The Book of Mormon. Portions of this can be found online here. And now we come to Caswall's second version of The Great Wagon Scene.

He afterwards proceeded to show his papyrus, and to explain the inscriptions; but probably suspecting that the author designed to entrap him, he suddenly left the apartment, leaped into his light waggon, and drove away as fast as possible. The author could not properly avoid expressing his opinion of the prophet to the assembled Mormons; and was engaged for several hours in a sharp controversy with various eminent dignitaries.

Rather than go through the discrepancies this entails, I shall defer to the late, great Hugh W. Nibley. I do this for three reasons: He said it first; he said it best; and the mere mention of his name is enough to reduce certain parties to gibbering with incoherent rage, which I confess (though with little sense of shame) I find considerably entertaining.

Reporter 2: Then Smith had no reason for suspecting that you knew Egyptian. But look where Smith is seized with panic. You ask him the meaning of a hieroglyphic symbol, and then he suspects that you "design to entrap him." This is the first mention of any trick or trap anywhere, yet it is not the Greek Psalter at all, but Smith's own familiar papyrus, of which of course you know nothing, that puts the prophet at your mercy. He is so terrified that the stranger who knows no Greek will catch him on a point of hieroglyphics that he rushes from the room, leaps into a wagon, and drives away "as fast as possible." Did you see him leap into the wagon? From your first account that is of course out of the question, yet in this case the reader is bound to take it for granted that you did, since your book is based "almost entirely on the personal testimony of the Author." You said nothing about leaping in the first edition, which paints a very different picture: there you waited long for the prophet's return, and then finally ("at length," as you put it), you gave up waiting and went down to the street, and it was not until you got there that you heard the noise of wheels and then the prophet came in sight furiously lashing his splendid steeds in his superbly tactful effort to escape having to explain the meaning of that hieroglyphic symbol to you. Couldn't he have escaped you by simply stepping into another room or house? Obviously the two stories don't fit at all. What was Smith doing while you waited so long for his return? Was he leaping into a wagon kept three miles away so that he could drive back at breakneck speed to the store for you to see him twenty minutes later? Was he doing a slow leap? If you didn't know where he had gone, why did he need to leave town in total panic and with such a hilarious flourish?

Caswall: "He probably suspected an intention on my part to trap him."

Reporter 2: What a motive for the wily Joe Smith to go completely off his head! You don't know that he suspected you, he "probably" did; and he knew nothing for sure, he only probably suspected; and he did not probably suspect that you had him, but only that you designed to; and not that you could expose him, but only probably suspected that you designed to entrap him. It is all as vague as that. But there is nothing vague in Smith's behavior—he puts on a four-star display of utter terror in the presence of you and "various eminent dignitaries." That is certainly a story worth telling.

Caswall: It is indeed, sir.

Reporter 2: Then why do you leave it out in all subsequent versions of the Nauvoo story? Why do you never mention it again?

These two versions, I submit, are incompatible. If the version in Three Days is true, then the version in Prophet of the Nineteenth cannot be; but if Prophet of the Nineteenth tells the real story, then Three Days clearly does not. And yet Mr Caswall purports to be telling us, not something he heard from someone else, or read in some document somewhere, but what he personally (and recently) experienced.

Does anyone want to try to show how these two stories can be reconciled? Because I can't see it, myself.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

chirp... chirp

[LeSellers]

chirp... chirp

I believe it should have been "chirp.chirp.chirp".

Why?

Because, as the temperature rises, crickets chirp faster.

Lehi

Edited August 18, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would have thought there would have been more interest in defending Caswalls account by the critics then we have seen.

[wenglund]

If the folks at Mormonthink are correct in dating "Henry Caswall's experience with Joseph Smith at Nauvoo on 18-19 April 1842", this proves interesting because here is what is recorded in the prophet's journal for the 18th and 19th:

"Monday, 18.--In consequence of the utter annihilation of our property by mob violence in the state of Missouri, and the immense expenses which we were compelled to incur, to defend ourselves from the cruel persecutions of that state, we were reduced to the necessity of availing ourselves of the privileges of the general bankrupt law; therefore I went to Carthage with my brothers Hyrum and Samuel H. Smith, and severally testified to our list of insolvency before the clerk of the county commissioners' court. Sidney Rigdon and many more brethren were at Carthage the same day on business. My clerk, Dr. Richards, went with us."

"Tuesday, 19.--Rode out and examined some land near the northern limits of the city, &c."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

If the folks at Mormonthink are correct in dating "Henry Caswall's experience with Joseph Smith at Nauvoo on 18-19 April 1842", this proves interesting because here is what is recorded in the prophet's journal for the 18th and 19th:

"Monday, 18.--In consequence of the utter annihilation of our property by mob violence in the state of Missouri, and the immense expenses which we were compelled to incur, to defend ourselves from the cruel persecutions of that state, we were reduced to the necessity of availing ourselves of the privileges of the general bankrupt law; therefore I went to Carthage with my brothers Hyrum and Samuel H. Smith, and severally testified to our list of insolvency before the clerk of the county commissioners' court. Sidney Rigdon and many more brethren were at Carthage the same day on business. My clerk, Dr. Richards, went with us."

"Tuesday, 19.--Rode out and examined some land near the northern limits of the city, &c."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well remember according to Caswals report Joseph had gone to Carthage earlier that day, so that does seem to cooberate things. So this gives us a list of names of people who could have not been present to witness Caswalls trick.

[Zakuska]

<dbl>

Edited August 18, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

<trip>

Edited August 18, 2011 by Zakuska

[wenglund]

Well remember according to Caswals report Joseph had gone to Carthage earlier that day, so that does seem to cooberate things. This gives us a list of names of people who could not have been present to witness Caswalls trick. We Do know John Taylor was in the printing office.

I posted the journal entries as much for what wasn't said as for what WAS said. It does corroborate Joseph's absence on the 18th, but it is conspicuously silent about all the alleged excitement of Caswell's visit to Joseph's home and the claimed highly sought after Greek parchment.

There is also no mention of Caswell or the Greek parchment in the Times and Season, published the following May 2nd, and Edited by Joseph Smith--though there were articles on the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian papyri.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

If the folks at Mormonthink are correct in dating "Henry Caswall's experience with Joseph Smith at Nauvoo on 18-19 April 1842", this proves interesting because here is what is recorded in the prophet's journal for the 18th and 19th:

"Monday, 18.--In consequence of the utter annihilation of our property by mob violence in the state of Missouri, and the immense expenses which we were compelled to incur, to defend ourselves from the cruel persecutions of that state, we were reduced to the necessity of availing ourselves of the privileges of the general bankrupt law; therefore I went to Carthage with my brothers Hyrum and Samuel H. Smith, and severally testified to our list of insolvency before the clerk of the county commissioners' court. Sidney Rigdon and many more brethren were at Carthage the same day on business. My clerk, Dr. Richards, went with us."

Yes, this corroborates what Caswall said about his second "day" at Nauvoo; Joseph was in Carthage, and someone probably told Caswall as much.

"Tuesday, 19.--Rode out and examined some land near the northern limits of the city, &c."

Hugh Nibley suggested that this might be the real germ of the Great Wagon Scene: Caswall might have seen Joseph riding out in his wagon to inspect the land, and subsequently worked that into his story by pretending that Joseph was running away from him.

Incidentally, Mr Graham, Caswall's doughty champion, never tires of a discussion, and anyone who does so is accused of "fleeing the scene" and thereby losing the debate. Should we take his long (and loud) silence in this thread as signifying something?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

I posted the journal entries as much for what wasn't said as for what WAS said. It does corroborate Joseph's absence on the 18th, but it is conspicuously silent about all the alleged excitement of Caswell's visit to Joseph's home and the claimed highly sought after Greek parchment.

There is also no mention of Caswell or the Greek parchment in the Times and Season, published the following May 2nd, and Edited by Joseph Smith--though there were articles on the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian papyri.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Which is strange because he seems to document in his Journal on which days the Egyptian papyri were displayed to inquisitive onlookers.

Of course... the naysayers will see this as a coffin nail that JS was hiding something.

[Zakuska]

<dbl>

Edited August 18, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

<dbl>

Edited August 18, 2011 by Zakuska

[Xander]

I don't see Pahoran questioning wether the Caswall incident ever happend. I see him questioning wether it happend as Caswall described it.

But he hasn't presented any evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude he was lying about this incident. His presentation about discrepancies is convoluted at best, and downright deceptive at worst. For instance, he says there are "six versions," but only alludes to three, and of those three, he cites only two, and of those two, there appears to be no serious discrepancy involved. Yet, he'll step back and throw out the "six versions" as if he has somehow established six entirely different accounts.

He then defers to Nibley''s silly mock trial that involves not a single statement based in history. For those unfamiliar with Nibley's "Mythmakers," he envisions a trial where he gets to examine and cross examine past critics of the Prophet, and of course this means "their" answers play right into his trap. This is very much like Darrick Evenson's mock missionary discussion in the appendix of his "Gainsayers" book. There is nothing honest or scholarly about this approach, as it doesn't deal with the history. It instead tries to persuade people by selling them a scenario that never took place.

Yup John Taylor din't knowed a lick a Greak eader! And couldn't distinguish Greek from Egyptian letters.

Zak, you are ignoring the fact that Joseph Smith views Greek and Egyptian as overlapping in many ways. And no, it is absurd to suggest Joseph Smith had a working knowledge of Greek. His main interest was Hebrew and he barely had familiarity with this language. Flipping through a lexicon doesn't endow someone with a working knowledge of the language.

chirp... chirp

I agree. Pahoran's refusal to live up to his promise is disappointing. I thought he was supposed to demonstrate serious discrepancies in the accounts.

[Xander]

I would have thought there would have been more interest in defending Caswalls account by the critics then we have seen.

The evidence has already been laid out supporting his version. You have the burden of proof here, not us. You need it to be false, so take your best shot trying to prove it. So far Pahoran is playing a shell game of "wait and see" and "maybe in the next thread" when ultimately all he has is a cut and paste from Nibley's silly mock interview.

The funny thing is Pahoran is questioning whether Joseph Smith fled in a rush, and now wade provides evidence from his journal suggesting that this was indeed the case. He fled to Carthage upon news of an emergency. If the reasons for his departure were not explained to Caswall, then his assumption that he sensed a trap and fled the scene for that reason, was a natural one, because he was trying to trap him. So what Pahoran calls "theater" is supported even further by Joseph Smith's own journal. The more you guys try to prove what he got wrong, it seems we find more reason to conclude he was telling the truth about these things.

Now, where is the evidence that he invented the part of the story that really matters? You know, the part where he presents Joseph Smith with the book and asks his opinion of the matter. What Pahoran fails to mention is that this is essentially consistent in all versions. He wants to focus on the irrelevant stuff, such as whether or not a doctor was an apostle, or if Joseph Smith ran in fear. These are details that could be right or wrong, but based strictly on interpretation of the events. "Lying" isn't required, as Pahoran needs to prove.

These two versions, I submit, are incompatible. If the version in Three Days is true, then the version in Prophet of the Nineteenth cannot be; but if Prophet of the Nineteenth tells the real story, then Three Days clearly does not. And yet Mr Caswall purports to be telling us, not something he heard from someone else, or read in some document somewhere, but what he personally (and recently) experienced.

What on earth are you tallking about? The mock interview you pasted from Nibley's imagination only talks about Joseph Smith suspecting a trap and leaving in a rush. But we already know Joseph Smith left the city that day on an emergency, so there is a reasonable basis for believing Caswall's account. Whether he fled because he sensed a trap is just an interpretation of Caswall, who admittedly says it is only his suspicion on his part. How on earth does this prove a discrepancy? Nibley claims in the interview that he never mentioned this in subsequent accounts, but this is absolutely false. It was initially told in the 1842 publication of City of the Mormons. Then we have two subsequent accounts that he published:

Subsequent account #1:

"He afterwards proceeded to show his papyrus, and to explain the inscriptions; but probably suspecting that the author designed to entrap him, he suddenly left the apartment, leaped into his light waggon, and drove away as fast as possible. The author could not properly avoid expressing his opinion of the prophet to the assembled Mormons; and was engaged for several hours in a sharp controversy with various eminent dignitaries." (Henry Caswall, The Prophet of the Nineteenth Century [1843], pp.223-224)

Subsequent account #2:

"The 'Prophet' afterwards exhibited to me the same sheets of papyrus which I had seen on the previous day, and began to give his usual explanation. But his suspicions appeared now to be awakened, and he suddenly departed, leaving me in the midst of the credulous and fanatical multitude." (Henry Caswall, America and the American Church, [1851] pp 358-359)

So in short, Nibley doesn't know what the heck he is talking about, and Pahoran will trust Nibley blindly every time. What came after the excerpt Pahoran posted was this, and notice how Nibley leaves Caswall defenseless with no response to the previous question. All is well in apologetic fantasy land, and Nibley's imagination guarantees it!

Moderator: Please, gentlemen, we shall get to that in good time. Mr. Caswall, will you tell us what happened next?

Caswall: Well, the 1843 story of the argument that followed is a good deal like that of 1842.

Reporter 1: Is the story of the old man and the healing in it?

Caswall: No, that is left out

Nibley throws this in there to insinuate that since he mentions the healing in 1842, but excludes it in 1843, that this somehow suggests he is making stuff up as he goes. But what Nibley doesn't tell us is that this detail was included in the 1851 version:

"After much fruitless argument which, however, they took in goood part, one of their number, perceiving my partial deafness, endeavored to work a miracle for my complete restoration. But observing that the touch of his finger and the use of the unknown tongue were in this instance without effect, he assured me that the actual cure was deferred until I should receive Joseph as a true prophet." (Henry Caswall, America and the American Church, [1851] pp 358-359)

So he mentions this in 1842 and in 1851 but doesn't mention it in 1843. So what? Again, using this same exact logic, the First Vision must be a lie since Joseph Smith doesn't mention two personages in every account, and he doesn't mention religious revivals in every account, etc.

But all of this is one giant smoke and mirror job, because no one has even begun to touch on the meat of ths subject, which is whether or not Joseph Smith identified the Psalter as a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics. This is consistent throughout all versions, and no one here has been able to discredit it. You're just hopping around it trying to pull a Nibley on us, which is focusing on everything else and making much ado about nothing. Who gives a flying flip whether Caswall believed Joseph Smith was cognizant of the trap and fled the scene as a result? This is based in perceptions of Smith's actions, it doesn't require dishonesty.

So far there are a plethora of things mentioned by Caswall that both sides agree on. Yet, there is nothing in his accounts that can be shown to be absolutely false. Nothing. All you have is John Taylor's account saying he told him he knew it was a Greek Psalter. But this is nothing more than a "he said-he said" scenario, that doesn't present proof Caswall was lying. And since you are all infatuated with court room scenarios, we already know John Taylor is a proven liar and so therefore his testimony would be dismissed on that basis alone.

What the apologists would have us believe is.... what exactly? That Caswall planned to trick the Prophet and yet failed? So where is the story published by the Church of the Prophet Joseph Smith foiling an attempted trap? It would go down in history as great proof that Joseph Smith could properly translate or at least identify ancient looking characters. Yet all we got was silence, knowing fully well that he was in town and met with Joseph Smith. So what is the apologetic explanation for this? None. All you want to do is insist Caswall is lying, because you need him to be lying, but you don't want to offer a more reasonable explanation of how things happened when he came to town with the intent to spring a trap for Joseph Smith. Caswall's version is corroborated by too much evidence to be ignored. Pahoran is so desperate that he has to rely on "maybe" or "perhaps he could have" scenarios to explain why he got so much right. This is all Nibley was left with as well. A very unscholarly approach to history, which is probably why modern scholars like Ashurst refused to pitch the Nibley dismissal in his review.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

Regarding publication of the Times and Seasons on May 4th, 1842, While Joseph was listed as Editor, earlier in the year Wilford Woodruff had been given charge of the printing office and John Taylor was appointed to head up the editorial department. Given that Taylor showed the greatest amount of interest in the Kinderhook plates (having published several times about it in the T&S), it seems surprising that he wouldn't have mentioned the Greek Psalter incident when he published the T&S on May 4th, 1842.

Be that as it may, Caswell spoke about a conversation he had with the "storekeeper" on the 18th. I suspect this may have been Bishop Newel K. Whitney, who not only ran the dry goods mercantile on the first floor of the the red brick store, but also took tithes there for the Bishop's Storehouse.

Caswell claimed that the storekeeper "led the way to a room behind his store, on the door of which was an inscription to the following effect: 'Office of Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Latter Day Saints.' Not to pick nits, but wasn't the room behind the store actually Whitney's office and the Bishop's storehouse, and Joseph's office was upstairs along with the meeting room or "assembly room"?

Willard Richards and Willaim Clayton also had an office in the red brick store at the time, called the "Counting Room." The previous December (1841) Richards had been appointed as Recorder of Temple Donations, and the follwoing February, Clayton was called to be his assistant. In september, this office was moved from the store to its own building, and the tithing office moved to Pratt's store. Do you suppose there is any mention of the Greek Psalter incident in Clayton's journal?

By the way, in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the section on the "President of the Church," there is an illustration of the sign, with this caption: "This painted tin sign (4" x 14") marked the office of Joseph Smith in his Red Brick Store in Nauvoo, Illinois, 1842-1844. It reads 'Joseph Smith's Office. President of the church of JESUS

Christ of LATTER day Saints.'"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 18, 2011 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

But he hasn't presented any evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude he was lying about this incident.

Caswall lied about a fictitious Nauvoo ordinance and made it a personal experience of his own. He lied about not being able to see Joseph's eyes. He probably lied about Joseph's white hat. He certainly lied about the Great Wagon Scene.

And the evidence continues to unfold.

His presentation about discrepancies is convoluted at best, and downright deceptive at worst.

Kevin, this is a thread in which substantial matters of evidence are being discussed. Your boundless spite and personal animosity is off-topic. Kindly keep them out of the thread.

For instance, he says there are "six versions," but only alludes to three,

So far. There is more to come. Your crowing is premature as usual.

and of those three, he cites only two, and of those two, there appears to be no serious discrepancy involved.

I invite you to read the thread again. Perhaps you will pick up what you missed before.

Which version of the "Great Wagon Scene" is the truthful one, Kevin?

Yet, he'll step back and throw out the "six versions" as if he has somehow established six entirely different accounts.

I will let you know when I have finished laying out my evidence; and then I will tell you what I think I have established, and not the other way around.

This is not a request, Kevin. It's just the way it is going to be.

He then defers to Nibley''s silly mock trial that involves not a single statement based in history. For those unfamiliar with Nibley's "Mythmakers," he envisions a trial where he gets to examine and cross examine past critics of the Prophet, and of course this means "their" answers play right into his trap. This is very much like Darrick Evenson's blah blah [snip failed attempt at smearing by assocation.]

Unfortunately for you, those who are familiar with it know that Part III, where Caswall is involved, is not a mock trial, but a TV panel discussion.

There is nothing honest or scholarly about this approach, as it doesn't deal with the history. It instead tries to persuade people by selling them a scenario that never took place.

It deals very well with the history. No wonder you don't like it.

Zak, you are ignoring the fact that Joseph Smith views Greek and Egyptian as overlapping in many ways. And no, it is absurd to suggest Joseph Smith had a working knowledge of Greek. His main interest was Hebrew and he barely had familiarity with this language. Flipping through a lexicon doesn't endow someone with a working knowledge of the language.

But he knew what Egyptian hieroglyphics look like, and Greek capital letters ain't them.

He also knew that "reformed Egyptian" was a Nephite invention, and therefore would not be found on any non-Nephite document.

I agree. Pahoran's refusal to live up to his promise is disappointing. I thought he was supposed to demonstrate serious discrepancies in the accounts.

As I said, I am laying out my evidence systematically. There is more to come.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

But he hasn't presented any evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude he was lying about this incident. His presentation about discrepancies is convoluted at best, and downright deceptive at worst. For instance, he says there are "six versions," but only alludes to three, and of those three, he cites only two, and of those two, there appears to be no serious discrepancy involved. Yet, he'll step back and throw out the "six versions" as if he has somehow established six entirely different accounts.

Isn't that exactly what Critics of the first Vision accounts have done for years now?

Zak, you are ignoring the fact that Joseph Smith views Greek and Egyptian as overlapping in many ways. And no, it is absurd to suggest Joseph Smith had a working knowledge of Greek. His main interest was Hebrew and he barely had familiarity with this language. Flipping through a lexicon doesn't endow someone with a working knowledge of the language.

Not so sure about that... I had a friend at my last Job whom was hosting some foreign exchange students to whom I borrowed a Portugues dictionary too. And he was speaking pretty fluently in about a week. He also learned 2 other languages while I was there.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Zakuska