Caswall And His Psalter, Part 2

[Zakuska]

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-

So John Taylor would have been in the printing office exactly when he said he was, to be able to tell Caswell it was greek.

[wenglund]

Many of us aren't all that learned in Greek or Egyptian. But, let's suppose that we, like the early Sainst and Joseph in particular, are somewhat familiar with the writing on Egyptian Papyrus like this:

And, then suppose someone arrives in town and shows us an ancient Greek document (600 years old or more) that looks like this:

What is the chance that we would think the later was the same language as the former?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Minos]

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.

You have euphemistically called a poster a liar twice in one post. If you can't have even one conversation without demonizing your opponent instead of tackling the topic this board isn't a good fit for you. You need to make a decision to stay and have reasonable discussions or go elsewhere. Management has bent over backwards but too many posters are being subjected to daily ridicule that gets them thrown out of a thread if they do it even once. It would be to everyone's advantage if you could make this work but we can't continue to overlook belligerence and rudeness.

[Zakuska]

Well you know the saying Wade: "It's all Greek to me".

[wenglund]

So John Taylor would have been in the printing office exactly when he said he was, to be able to tell Caswell it was Greek.

It is also quite feasible that Phelps, who was Joseph's long-time scribe, who had studied Greek and Latin in college, may have been around to back up what Taylor may have said, if not Joseph. But, this is just speculation on my part.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Many of us aren't all that learned in Greek or Egyptian. But, let's suppose that we, like the early Sainst and Joseph in particular, are somewhat familiar with the writing on Egyptian Papyrus like this:

And, then suppose someone arrives in town and shows us an ancient Greek document (600 years old or more) that looks like this:

What is the chance that we would think the later was the same language as the former?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is interesting. I have not very familiar with either language. I know the difference though. I bet JS studied more than I have in my life. I find it so unlikely that JS would have been taken in by Caswall's story. Of course I am sure we will see if Caswall did tell the truth in all of his writings.

[Zakuska]

It is also quite feasible that Phelps, who was Joseph's long-time scribe, who had studied Greek and Latin in college, may have been around to back up what Taylor may have said, if not Joseph. But, this is just speculation on my part.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I wonder if Taylor or Phelps had wrote in their Journals about the day?

[Pahoran]

Reply to Xander, Part 1.

The evidence has already been laid out supporting his version. You have the burden of proof here, not us.

That's not actually true. The burden of proof rests with the accusers, not the accused. Caswall made a number of significant accusations against Joseph. His credibility, such as it is, is the only evidence in favour of those accusations.

You need it to be false, so take your best shot trying to prove it. So far Pahoran is playing a shell game

Kevin, I will ask you just once more to keep your malice to yourself. If you could somehow manage to confine yourself to discussing substantive matters of fact, you might actually have something worthwhile to say.

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.

On the contrary, most of my cutting and pasting has been from Caswall's own writings.

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.

Thank you for that admission. Caswall originally said that he was going to provide a simple test of Joseph's scholarship; a trap is something else.

However, in your tendentious haste to score a point, you seem to have gotten your dates confused. Joseph went to Carthage on Monday morning, April 18th. That was the day Caswall came into Nauvoo and talked with people (including John Taylor) in the store. Joseph had already left town some time before Caswall arrived. The Great Wagon Scene is set on the next day, Tuesday the 19th.

You rely upon this mistake again below. I won't embarrass you by rubbing in the error you are labouring under regarding Joseph's departure; I will show you more forbearance than you would show me were the positions reversed.

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.

Pahoran doesn't "need to prove" any such thing. It is significant that Caswall doesn't name anyone at all except Joseph Smith and his mother. That is not "irrelevant stuff" at all.

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?

The discrepancy is obvious.

1) In Three Days at Nauvoo, Caswall gives a very specific description of events: he looks around from examining the papyrus and Joseph is gone. The anonymous Mormons tell him that Joseph had just "stepped out" (interesting phrase) and would probably soon return. So Caswall waits and waits until finally his patience is exhausted; then he walks down the stairs and out the door; only then does he see Joseph rushing past in his wagon.

2) In The Prophet of the Nineteenth Century, Caswall gives an equally specific -- but very different -- description of events: Joseph "suddenly" left and "leaped" into his wagon and drove off "as fast as possible." But in the first account, Caswall0 didn't see Joseph leave, so couldn't know that it was "suddenly;" Joseph didn't "leap" anywhere. There is, in the second account, simply no time for the long wait and descent to the street.

Which of these accounts is the accurate one, Kevin? Because they cannot both be.

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)

The only thing in view that is "absolutely false" is your presentation of what Nibley said. He discussed this account in detail. I quoted from that discussion in my earlier post. Do you actually read what you are responding to?

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,

Actually Kevin, you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about. Why don't you quote what Nibley actually says? Here, let me help you:

Reporter 2: Please, gentlemen, let us be fair! Mr. Caswall makes no mention of the prophet's panic in his 1851 books.

Reporter 1: Indeed, I thought that was the most striking and picturesque part of the story. But what about the team of horses, and dashing down the street in a cloud of dust and all that—simply delightful!

Reporter 2: Alas! Not a word of all that in 1851. Indeed, we never hear of the wagon again after 1843.

Reporter 3: Why not, Mr. Caswall? That was easily the best part of the story. Sheer drama. And in all your later versions you don't even mention it. If it was true in 1843 and 1842, why do you never tell it again?

Clearly you don't quote Nibley because he doesn't support your spin. It is the Great Wagon Scene that disappears after 1843, and the account you cite actually demonstrates that fact.

The villain unmasked who flees the hero's presence in utter terror and doesn't stop running until he's over the horizon is straight out of Victorian melodrama. It amuses and entertains those who irrationally hate Joseph Smith and uncritically accept anything hostile that anyone says about him, however absurd; but it never happened.

Sorry.

End of Part 1.

[Pahoran]

Reply to Xander, Part 2.

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)

I have highlighted your false accusation. The fact is that Nibley does tell us this, and in fact discusses it in detail, thus:

Reporter 2: But in 1842 and 1843 you said that the Mormons were quite crestfallen as a result of your discourse, and even admitted that Smith made mistakes like other men, and had been deceived regarding the Psalter. That does not seem like fruitless argument. It is a brilliant victory—which you never mention after 1843! What happened after the fruitless argument which didn't offend the Mormons at all?

Caswall: "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."

Reporter 2: To save embarrassing questions, may I be permitted simply to compare this with Mr. Caswall's earlier account? In 1843 it was Caswall himself who called attention to his deafness and challenged the Mormons to cure it, after telling them he had no faith; in 1851 the initiative is all with them. The silly 1843 gesture of thrusting fingers into both ears has in 1851 become a simple "touch of his finger." We might elaborate on these inventions, but let us hear Mr. Caswall's parting speech.

Everyone makes mistakes, Kevin. But when you preface your mistakes with superior sneers and outright accusations of dishonesty, you quite deservedly end up with egg on your face.

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.

Your attempt to yet again drag the First Vision into this thread, despite my explicit insistence that it is off-topic, is noted.

The First Vision must stand on its own merits; as must Mr Caswall's accounts. Those who want to resort to sly polemical tricks, such as attempts at smearing by association, need not apply.

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.

There is plenty more evidence to come.

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.

The only thing "we already know" is that every time you've ever called anyone a "proven liar," it's because that person is a Mormon whom you hate, primarily because he is a better and more honest person than you.

I have not yet discussed John Taylor's testimony; in process of time I shall do so. And I shall demonstrate that everything he said about Caswall is credible. Kindly refrain from your spiteful well-poisoning until then.

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.

There is plenty more to come. Your triumphant crowing is just as premature as ever.

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.

That's false. Ashurst-McGee simply saw no need to chase every rabbit down every hole; but he also pointed to Nibley's article as indicative of Caswall's reliability as a witness.

IOW, he cited it with approval.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

As Pahoran skillfully builds his case against Caswell using Caswell's own words, I thought it might be of interest to compare and contrast Caswell's alleged experience (at least one version) with the experience of others, particularly in regards to Joseph's purported reaction being asked the meaning of certain characters on the papyri.

Here is what Caswell said:

"...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." (See Pahoran's linked citation above)

Here the experience of others:

"Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies....As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a gentleman, he gave me the following certificate:: 'This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I and that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters. MICHAEL H. CHANDLER.'" (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.235)

What interests me most about Chandler's experience as contrasted with Caswell's alleged experience, is in Caswell's case, Joseph had up until then had the papyri in his possession for nearly nine years, and had oft exhibited them (see below), whereas in Chandler's case, it was the first time he had set eyes on the papyri, yet Joseph willingly agreed to do with Chandler after seeing the papyri for the first time what Caswell implied Joseph was frightened to do after nine years of acquaintance with the papyri. Fascinating.

Here are other accounts:

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

November 17, 1835: "Exhibited the alphabet of the ancient records, to Mr. Holmes, and some others. Went with him to Frederick G. Williams', to see the mummies." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.23, p.316)

November 24, 1835: "This evening a number of brethren called to see the records, which I exhibited and explained." ((History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.23 p. 326)

December 7, 1835: "This evening a number of brethren called to see the records, which I exhibited and explained." (ibid. p. 326)

December 10, 1835: " This morning a number of brethren called to see the records, [Egyptian] which I exhibited to their satisfaction." (ibid. p. 327)

December 11, 1835: "Spent the forenoon in reading. About twelve o'clock a number of young persons called to see the Egyptian records. My scribe exhibited them. One of the young ladies who had been examining them, was asked if they had the appearance of antiquity. She observed, with an air of contempt, that they had not. On hearing this, I was surprised at the ignorance she displayed, and I observed to her, that she was an anomaly in creation, for all the wise and learned that had examined them, without hesitation pronounced them ancient. I further remarked, that it was downright wickedness, ignorance, bigotry and superstition had caused her to make the remark; and that I would put it on record. And I have done so, because it is a fair sample of the prevailing spirit of the times, showing that the victims of priestcraft and superstition would not believe though one should rise from the dead." (ibid p. 329)

 December 16th, 1835: " Elders William E. M'Lellin, Brigham Young, and Jared Carter, called and paid me a visit with which I was much gratified. I exhibited and explained the Egyptian records to them, and explained many things concerning the dealing of God with the ancients, and the formation of the planetary system." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.25, p.334)

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

"...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." (See Pahoran's linked citation above)

Lets cut Caswell some slack... perhaps he was just plagerizing from the Bible.

2 Kings 2:11

11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a

chariot of fire,

and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[wenglund]

-continued-

December 23, 1835: "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)

January 30th, 1836: "Attended school, as usual, and waited upon several visitors, and showed them the record of Abraham. Mr. Seixas, our Hebrew teacher, examined it with deep interest, and pronounced it to be original beyond all doubt. He is a man of excellent understanding, and has a knowledge of many languages which were spoken by the ancients, and he is an honorable man, so far as I can judge yet." (ibid p388)

February 17th, 1836: "Many called to see the House of the Lord, and the Egyptian manuscript, and to visit me." (ibid. p.396)

May 13, 1837: " In the afternoon we went into the [Kirtland] Temple, and saw the mummies and the records which were found with them (we went to the prophet's house to see him. This is the first I saw him, and shook hands with him). Joseph Smith Sen. explained them to us, and said the records were the writings of Abraham & Joseph, Jacob's son. Some of the writing was in black, and some in red. He said that the writing in red, was pertaining to the Priesthood.." (Autobiography of Warren Foote)

1837: I paid twenty-five cents for going through the Temple, and seeing the mummies and records, which excited my curiosity so much that I went the next day and examined them again….The Mormons have four mummies, and a quantity of records, written on papyrus, in Egyptian hieroglyphics, which were brought from the catacombs near Thebes, in Egypt. They say that the mummies were Egyptian, but the records are those of Abraham and Joseph, and contain important information respecting the creation, the fall of man, the deluge, the patriarchs, the book of Mormon, the lost tribe, the gathering, the end of the world, the judgment, &c. &c. This is as near as I can recollect; if there is an error I hope some of the Mormons will point it out, and I will recall it. These records were torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve which contained them, and some parts entirely lost; but Smith is to translate the whole by divine inspiration, and that which is lost, like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, can be interpreted as well as that which is preserved; and a larger volume than the Bible will be required to contain them. For further account of these mummies and records, see Mormon Advocate, of December, 1835. " (The Rise and Progress and Pretentions of Mormonism, by Wm. S. West, 1837

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

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.

But here is your problem Pahoran. Your evidence isn’t persuasive to historians as there is no reason to "lie" about this stuff. It is only persuasive to those who refuse to entertain the possibility that Joseph Smith fell for a trap and lost. While you clearly started these threads to attack me, you can’t seriously expect to convince someone who has no problem believing Joseph Smith would fall for a trap.

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.

You have to present evidence first for this to be true. All you have done so far is assert a bunch of hypotheticals and engage in the usual smear campaign against Caswall. You present nothing new here. I understand that to most folks here, by rejecting Joseph Smith as a prophet, one is automatically a lying scoundrel, but this kind of ideology is useless to historians.

But what I don’t get is that you are constantly making snide remarks, calling me a liar, saying I have a shared "ideology" with people who are hated on this forum, referring to Caswall as my "client,” so on and so forth (I could make a list so long that I’d have to spread it out across two posts) and you do this for personal reasons, and you do it because you know you can get away with it. We both know you’re still upset about your train wreck in the other thread. I get it. That wasn’t your finest hour. But what I don’t get is that you claim to be seriously discussing this in a cordial manner without the personal jabs. I mean really, who do you think you’re kidding?

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

Wow, and yet a third thread to come? Why are you dragging this out when you could just as easily provide the link to the Nibley piece you’re using? It is as if we're constantly listening to a drum roll in the background, awaiting your final curtain call in every thread you start, only to be told there is more to come. I’ve never seen anything like this. I'm still waiting for you to discredit Caswall's claim regarding Smith's treatment of the Psalter. You keep alluding to various accounts but you never cite these accounts. Do you really think I don’t know what it is you have up your sleeve? I predicted you’d be using Nibley, and lo and behold, you quickly defer to Nibley. Now I suspect you’re going to relay the same stuff that was in the rest of his piece or maybe Craig Foster’s article.

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

There is no such a thing as the “Great Wagon Scene.” You place so much importance on something that Caswall himself admitted was only a suspicion of his. He never stated in absolute terms, that Joseph Smith was running away from him because he sensed a trap. It was always a suspicion. If he were lying about what he saw, why not remove the ambiguity? I mean he was lying right? So why not just make up something that cannot be reduced to or explained as a biased assumption? Why not just say he saw Joseph Smith running and that he heard him scream over his shoulder, “Sorry, but God told me this is a trap” or something to that effect? He doesn’t do anything of the sort as one might expect from a shameless liar. Instead, Caswall makes it clear he didn’t know for certain why Joseph Smith left the way he did. But for you and Nibley, it is crucial that much ado is made of the “wagon.” It is so important to you that you’ve given it a name: “Great Wagon Scene.” But the fact that it isn’t mentioned in all accounts is evidence that the point wasn’t as important to Caswall as you want it to be. Caswall’s point about Joseph Smith fleeing the scene is consistent throughout all accounts. One account mentions Joseph Smith leaving in a hurry via wagon, and the other simply says he left in a rush. This isn't a contradiction; it is one account providing more detail than the other.

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.

Then what is with all this side-show drama, insinuating that I have gone silent (because heaven forbid I leave the thread for an entire 12 hours; I must be on the run!) thus, this is evidence you have won the debate? I’m constantly juggling several discussions at once with very limited time a few hours a week, and to be perfectly honest I thought I’d give you a little break after decimating your straw man in the other thread, which you admittedly abandoned. So get real. During my 12 hour break from this thread, I notice that you and your supporters were taunting me to respond. And now that I have, you complain because I responded before you finished your argument, which, at this rate, may be completed in your ninth thread by the end of November, if we’re lucky.

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.

Same difference, as the entire thing is born from Nibley's imagination where he gets to ask questions of someone who has been dead for decades while assuming the right to answer on his behalf, in the dumbest ways imaginable. Anyone can win a debate using this method. I’ve done this on the forums just for the sake of parody, but Nibley presents this as a serious piece of scholarship, which is embarrassing for him. I was on my mission when I was first introduced to the Myth Makers, and it wasn’t until after I read most of it that I realized the entire proposed Q&A sessions were nothing but fiction.

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

I don't like it because it is misleading and I showed that Nibley argues in ignorance while picking and choosing citations that span a decade, while ignoring others, just to mount his attack on someone whose only crime was to put Joseph Smith to the test. I know apologists hate it when this happens because they don’t like it when Joseph Smith’s claims are falsifiable.

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

Again, your argument ignores the fact that he believed “4” was Egyptian, although he knew it was English as well. He also believed “man” and “son” were valid characters/words used in the original pure language of Adam, even though they were also English. So there is nothing preventing him from believing there was an overlap in Greek and Egyptian, especially since the GAEL uses the Greek symbol Alpha in an Egyptian context.

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

Again, you don’t understand how Joseph Smith viewed languages. And I’ve seen numerous attempts by apologists, including Nibley, to prove “reformed Egyptian” existed prior to the Nephite period. The Nephites only gave it that name, but the concept of reforming the Egyptian language isn’t of Nephite origin and you can’t show that Joseph Smith believed that it was. It has already been demonstrated that Joseph Smith understood that these languages overlapped to a considerable degree.

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

That's what I assumed, but then I noticed I was being taunted by you and your hecklers to respond immediately. So which is it? Do you want me to wait until you present your entire argument over the span of however many threads you have in mind, or do you want me to respond to your incomplete argument as you dish out the spasmodic rhetoric?

[Xander]

That's not actually true. The burden of proof rests with the accusers, not the accused. Caswall made a number of significant accusations against Joseph. His credibility, such as it is, is the only evidence in favour of those accusations.

Your problem is that you fail to understand that you are the accuser here. You are accusing Caswall of lying and you are bending over backwards here. Caswall simply bore his testimony of his experience with Joseph Smith. We know he met Joseph Smith. We know it happened. This is beyond dispute. What happened between them is under dispute, but the fact is we only have Caswall’s firsthand account. You don’t get to dismiss it just because his account implies Joseph Smith was a fraud. You actually have to explain why his account is false. You don’t even have another firsthand account to counter his claim. Taylor confirmed Caswall’s claim that he was there with the Psalter for the purpose of testing the Prophet. But he wasn’t in their presence when it took place. All you have read hoc apologetic comments from Taylor and from whoever wrote that piece in the Times and Seasons. This piece admitted Caswall met with Joseph Smith.

Kevin, I will ask you just once more to keep your malice to yourself. If you could somehow manage to confine yourself to discussing substantive matters of fact, you might actually have something worthwhile to say.

Malice: desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness:

If you had a case Pahoran, you wouldn’t need to constantly poison the well in this manner. To accuse me of trying to harm someone (who??) is just ridiculous; and a tad ironic since you are the one trying to discredit Caswall while calling him all sorts of hideous names. You’ve also called me a liar several times, while making it perfectly clear your beef with me is personal. So if there is any malice involved, it certainly isn’t coming from my end. This thread was clearly a response to my belief that Caswall’s account is credible. You started these threads to illicit a response from me, to what you thought were refutations of my previous claims. So please stop with this silliness about how I am the being malicious. I’m simply responding to your challenge by pointing out the deficiencies in your argument along with your misuse of the source documents.

However, in your tendentious haste to score a point, you seem to have gotten your dates confused. Joseph went to Carthage on Monday morning, April 18th. That was the day Caswall came into Nauvoo and talked with people (including John Taylor) in the store. Joseph had already left town some time before Caswall arrived. The Great Wagon Scene is set on the next day, Tuesday the 19th.

Then it is clear someone had messed up by a day, but this doesn’t change the fact that we know Caswall met with Joseph Smith. The Times and Seasons admits this.

I won't embarrass you by rubbing in the error you are labouring under regarding Joseph's departure; I will show you more forbearance than you would show me were the positions reversed.

See what I mean? You can no longer pretend this isn’t personal for you. These remarks would result in an immediate thread shut down had I said them. You make it sound like this is such a crucial point to my counter argument. I only brought it up in light of wade’s post above, so yes it was in haste. But as I said, I responded off the cuff because of the silly taunting that had been occurring here (i.e. “chirp chirp”) that involved you as well.

Pahoran doesn't "need to prove" any such thing. It is significant that Caswall doesn't name anyone at all except Joseph Smith and his mother. That is not "irrelevant stuff" at all.

It is entirely irrelevant if you’re trying to argue he never met with Joseph Smith. Is this what you want to argue? You’re never clear on these points.

The discrepancy is obvious.

Virtually all accounts referring to the same event will contain discrepancies since a discrepancy is merely a “difference.” But a slight difference in point X doesn’t prove or even imply he was lying about point Z.

1) In Three Days at Nauvoo, Caswall gives a very specific description of events: he looks around from examining the papyrus and Joseph is gone. The anonymous Mormons tell him that Joseph had just "stepped out" (interesting phrase) and would probably soon return. So Caswall waits and waits until finally his patience is exhausted; then he walks down the stairs and out the door; only then does he see Joseph rushing past in his wagon.

2) In The Prophet of the Nineteenth Century, Caswall gives an equally specific -- but very different -- description of events: Joseph "suddenly" left and "leaped" into his wagon and drove off "as fast as possible." But in the first account, Caswall0 didn't see Joseph leave, so couldn't know that it was "suddenly;" Joseph didn't "leap" anywhere. There is, in the second account, simply no time for the long wait and descent to the street.

So Caswall exaggerates an irrelevant detail, which is something the critics have already conceded, and this is your much anticipated proof that his claim that Joseph Smith said the Psalter was a dictionary, was all a lie? Sigh, just as I thought.

Historians are not obligated to be so dismissive. I already said he exaggerated Joseph Smith’s manner of speech, but this doesn’t prove he never heard him speak. Historians recognize the bias and the tendency to exaggerate from all parties. This exists on both sides of the fence. But this in and of itself doesn’t prove said events never happened, nor does it discount those details which remain perfectly consistent in all accounts. Also, the second account was given a year later. Do I really need to explain that people retell events in different ways, especially among older folk, as time goes by? Let’s look at the context of each version.

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. (Caswall, City of the Mormons, [1842] pp. 36-37)

And a year later he gives a much shorter and less detailed account:

When an ancient Greek manuscript of the Psalms was exhibited to him as a test of his scholarship, he boldly pronounced it to be 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 language. Them characters is like the letters that was engraved on the golden plates." 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)

Now according to you, both versions are “equally specific” which is demonstrably false. Also, you claim they are “very” different, which is also demonstrably false. There are differences of course, but we would expect this. The second account was clearly intended to be more brief than the former. The relevant statement addressing your concern, in the 1843 account was clearly an attempt to cram many points into one sentence:

“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.”

That’s seven points of recollection crammed into one sentence of 38 words (showed papyrus, Joseph responds to inscriptions, he suspects a trap, leaves the apartment, jumps in wagon, drives away quickly), where the original account discusses these things over the span of 190 words and 9 sentences.

But according to you, the second account was “equally specific”? This is why is it important to provide the actual accounts instead of confusing people with rhetoric.

Which of these accounts is the accurate one, Kevin? Because they cannot both be

Technically true, but I think it is clear he was trying to be as brief as possible in the second account. Once sentence compared to nine, really says it all.

The only thing in view that is "absolutely false" is your presentation of what Nibley said. He discussed this account in detail. I quoted from that discussion in my earlier post. Do you actually read what you are responding to?

I was responding to your citation of Nibley. I apologize for assuming you had accurately quoted him, but it seems you decided, for whatever reason, to cut off the second half of the statement.

Why don't you quote what Nibley actually says? Here, let me help you:… Reporter 3: Why not, Mr. Caswall? That was easily the best part of the story. Sheer drama. And in all your later versions you don't even mention it. If it was true in 1843 and 1842, why do you never tell it again?

The last sentence you omitted in your original citation, so my use of the 1843 account is moot. However the fact still remains that the 1851 account still mentions Joseph Smith leaving in a hurry, implying he was perhaps suspicious. What does it matter if he left riding a donkey, a skateboard or a wagon? Nibley took issue with his insinuation that the Prophet was afraid he was being trapped, therefore he fled the scene. This nonsense about the “Great Waggon Scene” is apologetic theater. How on earth is that the “best part of the story”? Why is it so important for Nibley that Caswall mention seeing Joseph Smith in a wagon every time? The only explanation seems to be that he needs it to be, simply because he didn’t mention it in subsequent versions. But so what? I already showed above why this was hardly surprising. You and Nibley inject your own conditions into the scenario, calling the versions “equally specific” as a way to avoid the obvious answer to the question: one was intended to be shorter.

Clearly you don't quote Nibley because he doesn't support your spin. It is the Great Wagon Scene that disappears after 1843, and the account you cite actually demonstrates that fact.

I didn’t quote Nibley, because you already did, although you cut the sentence in half for some reason. And it is false to insist Caswall doesn’t mention it, because he does mention the event. The event is Joseph Smith running away because he sensed a trap. So what is Caswall didn’t mention the wagon after 1842? How on earth does this matter? The great “theater” here was Joseph Smith running away from a challenge. It has nothing to do with the wagon, and Nibley doesn’t provide the context of these subsequent accounts because he knows that Caswall does indeed refer to the incident. He just doesn’t mention the wagon for the sake of brevity.

The villain unmasked who flees the hero's presence in utter terror and doesn't stop running until he's over the horizon is straight out of Victorian melodrama. It amuses and entertains those who irrationally hate Joseph Smith and uncritically accept anything hostile that anyone says about him, however absurd; but it never happened.

Except that isn’t what he said. Your recreation of the event makes for good drama and fodder for apologists who don’t want to rely on what was actually said. The fact that you and Nibley have to rely on so much creativity to misrepresent Caswall is all the evidence we need to know you have no case based on the actual evidence. As I said before, Caswall conceded that he was only throwing that out there as a possibility. He never said he knew definitively that he was fleeing the scene for these reasons. This is what you need to be true, but it simply isn’t.

Now, go ahead and return to your cut-paste job of Nibley’s mock interview. You could really save us all a lot of time by providing the link:

http://maxwellinstit...d=77&chapid=969

I know you're relying strictly on Nibley's description of the 1851 account, but I have it in pdf if anyone wants a copy (PM me).

You see, the problem I have with your method is that you never just present the various accounts for people to read and make their own judgment call. You obviously do not believe the evidence by itself would lead people to draw the same conclusions you and Nibley have adopted. Instead you feel the need to provide carefully selected portions piecemeal while you mix in rhetoric to persuade them at every step to agree with your conclusion. I can afford to let people read the entire accounts as they happened. I don’t need to play hide the argument” and “guess the evidence” while taunting my opponent to respond immediately. I can only assume you’re doing this in order to lay traps for me, hoping I’ll jump to the wrong conclusion about what you’re arguing (which you make very easy) so you can then call me names while pretending to be a humble and charitable fellow who won’t “rub” my nose in it – which, just by saying this, you’re effectively doing what you claim you’re too charitable to do.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

-continued-

This next citation is of particular interest because it took place in Nauvoo, a little over a year before Caswell's visit. Note that the papyri were stored in the "upper room" rather than the back of the office, as Caswell claimed. Note also that Joseph, without the least hint of trepidation, pro-actively points out an Egyptian character and gives a translation.

July 28, 1840: "…After he [Joseph Smith] had shown us the fine grounds around his dwelling; he conducted us, at our request, to an upper room, where he drew aside the curtains of a case, and showed us several Egyptian Mummies, which we were told that the church had purchased, at his suggestion, some time before, for a large sum of money. The embalmed body that stands near the center of the case, said he, is one of the Pharaohs, who sat on the throne of Egypt, and the female figure by it was probably one of the daughters. It may have been the Princess Thermutis, I replied, "the same that rescued Moses from the waters of the Nile. It is not improbable, answered the Prophet, but time has not yet allowed fully to examine and decide that point. Do you understand the Hebrew language, said he, raising his hand to the top of the case, and taking down a small Hebrew grammar of Rabbi Seixas. That language has not altogether escaped my attention, was the reply. He then walked to a secretary, on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames, covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted. These ancient records, said he, throw great light on the subject of Christianity. They have been unrolled and preserved with great labor and care. My time has been hitherto too much taken up to translate the whole of them, but I will show you how I interpret certain parts. There, said he, pointing to a particular character, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham. It is indeed a most interesting autograph, I replied, and doubtless the only one extant. What an ornament it would be to have these ancient manuscripts handsomely set, in appropriate frames, and hung up around the walls of the temple which you are about to erect at this place. Yes, replied the Prophet, and the translation hung up with them. " (The Sun)

March 1, 1842 (A month or so before Caswsell's visit): "In the afternoon explained the records of Abraham to the recorder. Sisters Marinda, Mary, and others present to hear the explanations…. I commenced publishing my translations of the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons as follows…"( History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.30, p.519-520)

Clearly, for nine years Joseph had no problem showing the Egyptian record, explaining what they were about, and even translating some of the characters for LDS and non-LDS visitors. What do you think may have changed to supposedly cause Joseph to supposedly flee in fear at Caswell's request for a translation? Or, did he?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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"?

As confirmation, in addition to the citation above that spoke of the papyri being in the "upper room", there is this in Joseph's journal, dated May 4th, 1842, just a couple of weeks after Caswell's visit:

"I spent the day in the upper part of the store, that is in my private office (so called because in that room I keep my sacred writings, translate ancient records, and receive revelations)" (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.1, p.1 - p.2)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 19, 2011 by wenglund

[Zakuska]

-continued-

This next citation is of particular interest because it took place in Nauvoo, a little over a year before Caswell's visit. Note that the papyri were stored in the "upper room" rather than the back of the office, as Caswell claimed. Note also that Joseph, without the least hint of trepidation, pro-actively points out an Egyptian character and gives a translation.

I don't think we can quite come to that conclusion yet Wade. In one of his versions he does decend some stairs.

"...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." (See Pahoran's linked citation above)

So as we can see he just got a detail wrong. If only people would cut Joseph Smith as much slack when evaluating the first vision accounts.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Xander]

-continued-

This next citation is of particular interest because it took place in Nauvoo, a little over a year before Caswell's visit. Note that the papyri were stored in the "upper room" rather than the back of the office, as Caswell claimed. Note also that Joseph, without the least hint of trepidation, pro-actively points out an Egyptian character and gives a translation.

July 28, 1840: "…After he [Joseph Smith] had shown us the fine grounds around his dwelling; he conducted us, at our request, to an upper room, where he drew aside the curtains of a case, and showed us several Egyptian Mummies, which we were told that the church had purchased, at his suggestion, some time before, for a large sum of money. The embalmed body that stands near the center of the case, said he, is one of the Pharaohs, who sat on the throne of Egypt, and the female figure by it was probably one of the daughters. It may have been the Princess Thermutis, I replied, "the same that rescued Moses from the waters of the Nile. It is not improbable, answered the Prophet, but time has not yet allowed fully to examine and decide that point. Do you understand the Hebrew language, said he, raising his hand to the top of the case, and taking down a small Hebrew grammar of Rabbi Seixas. That language has not altogether escaped my attention, was the reply. He then walked to a secretary, on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames, covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted. These ancient records, said he, throw great light on the subject of Christianity. They have been unrolled and preserved with great labor and care. My time has been hitherto too much taken up to translate the whole of them, but I will show you how I interpret certain parts. There, said he, pointing to a particular character, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham. It is indeed a most interesting autograph, I replied, and doubtless the only one extant. What an ornament it would be to have these ancient manuscripts handsomely set, in appropriate frames, and hung up around the walls of the temple which you are about to erect at this place. Yes, replied the Prophet, and the translation hung up with them. " (The Sun)

March 1, 1842 (A month or so before Caswsell's visit): "In the afternoon explained the records of Abraham to the recorder. Sisters Marinda, Mary, and others present to hear the explanations…. I commenced publishing my translations of the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons as follows…"( History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.30, p.519-520)

Clearly, for nine years Joseph had no problem showing the Egyptian record, explaining what they were about, and even translating some of the characters for LDS and non-LDS visitors. What do you think may have changed to supposedly cause Joseph to supposedly flee in fear at Caswell's request for a translation? Or, did he?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't for a second believe Joseph Smith fled in fear. I think he probably left abruptly, but for some other reason, probably an emergency. He was the most important figure in town and didn't owe some traveling tourist his attention for the entire day. Caswall is probably genuine in his belief that he may have triggered suspicion in Joseph Smith. My wife does stuff like this all the flippin time, psychoanalyzing why people do what they do, when in fact she is usually wrong. For example, if someone cancels a dinner appointment with us at the last minute (like they did tonight), she almost always assumes it is because she did something wrong to make them upset at some previous time.

[wenglund]

I understand that Caswell's accounts may be of near scriptural importance to the disbelief of certain people, as evinced, in part, by the way they are equated to the First Vision and also by how vigorously they are defended.

So, may I just say that my intent here isn't to tread disrespectfully on your sacred and venerated texts or to try and rob people of their worshipful belief in Caswell and their justification for dis-belief in the LDS faith. Regardless of how I think the evidence may balance against the accuracy of Caswell's accounts and raises serious doubts in my mind, there is still sufficient room for people to hold fast to Caswell's words and have unwavering faith therein.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

My wife does stuff like this all the flippin time, psychoanalyzing why people do what they do, when in fact she is usually wrong. For example, if someone cancels a dinner appointment with us at the last minute (like they did tonight), she almost always assumes it is because she did something wrong to make them upset at some previous time.

Yes, some people are prone to reading people's actions in the worst possible light.

They are also prone to observing how others may do this, though they may fail to see it more abundantly in themselves.

I have found that it is in our interest and those around us to openly and genuinely introspect for these tendencies in ourselves, and to strive to be more charitable in how we view the actions of others.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 19, 2011 by wenglund

[cdowis]

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

Please open a new thread on the subject.

I think you are full of baloney, but let's see what you got.

Edited August 20, 2011 by cdowis

[Eldwynn]

I understand that Caswell's accounts may be of near scriptural importance to the disbelief of certain people, as evinced, in part, by the way they are equated to the First Vision and also by how vigorously they are defended.

So, may I just say that my intent here isn't to tread disrespectfully on your sacred and venerated texts or to try and rob people of their worshipful belief in Caswell and their justification for dis-belief in the LDS faith. Regardless of how I think the evidence may balance against the accuracy of Caswell's accounts and raises serious doubts in my mind, there is still sufficient room for people to hold fast to Caswell's words and have unwavering faith therein.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Man you sure make those Caswell followers sound loony! Man how silly the religious are!

Edited August 20, 2011 by Eldwynn

[Xander]

Please open a new thread on the subject.

I think you are full of baloney, but let's see what you got.

I should have qualified this statement as I have before. Using Pahoran's logic, the discrepancies in the First Vision accounts should be enough to discount the First Vision since all accounts cannot be true - his logic, not mine.

And yes, I already started another thread about this.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Xander

[Pahoran]

Xander,

I previously wrote:

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 you quoted me thus:

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.

Why the difference, Kevin? Why did you silently snip the part about the fictitious Nauvoo ordinance? Was it because it was such an obvious lie on Caswall's part that you couldn't explain it away? Were you hoping nobody would notice?

But here is your problem Pahoran. Your evidence isn’t persuasive to historians as there is no reason to "lie" about this stuff.

How do you know? Have you asked any?

Even the most dedicated Caswall apologists admit that he exaggerated in his physical description of Joseph. They also admit that he exaggerated his allegedly verbatim quotation of Joseph's supposedly dreadful grammar. What reason did Caswall have to exaggerate about any of that? No reason, right? Yet he did.

So on what basis do you assume that he would stop at exaggeration -- and obvious, gratuitous and unnecessary exaggeration at that?

What reason did Caswall have to lie about the fictitious Nauvoo ordinance, Kevin?

Because the fact is that he did lie.

If the core of his story -- that Joseph pronounced a Greek Psalter to be a dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics, written in reformed Egyptian -- was true, what reason was them for him to lie or exaggerate about anything at all?

It is only persuasive to those who refuse to entertain the possibility that Joseph Smith fell for a trap and lost. While you clearly started these threads to attack me,

Kevin, for someone who has not yet been elected Supreme Ruler of the Universe, your sense of importance is at least a little bit exaggerated.

I did not start this thread to attack you. You are not the subject of this thread. If you were to leave this thread, I would continue to build up the case based upon Caswall's own writings without having to deal with all these spiteful and personal distractions from you. I started this thread so as not to derail the KP/KEP thread.

You should know that, under the rules of this forum, as the thread originator I pretty much own the thread. That doesn't mean that I'm allowed to break the rules, as I was reminded on the earlier thread, but it does mean that I get to control the scope. And I say that your persistent personal attacks are off-topic.

you can’t seriously expect to convince someone who has no problem believing Joseph Smith would fall for a trap.

But Caswall never said anything about a trap. He said it was a simple test of Joseph's scholarship, asking him to identify a Greek text that anyone with a basic level of Greek could read. While it is nice of you to admit that your strictly honest and upright client was actually up to something shifty, we're not actually there yet.

You have to present evidence first for this to be true. All you have done so far is assert a bunch of hypotheticals and engage in the usual smear campaign against Caswall. You present nothing new here. I understand that to most folks here, by rejecting Joseph Smith as a prophet, one is automatically a lying scoundrel, but this kind of ideology is useless to historians.

Nor does it have anything to do with my methodology here. As you perfectly well know, Kevin, I am relying upon what Caswall himself wrote, not upon any assumptions based upon his theological positions.

Furthermore, your well-poisoning is based upon a false statement. It is not my postion that "by rejecting Joseph Smith as a prophet, one is automatically a lying scoundrel." Nor is that even a recognisable caricature of my position. The very best it could ever be is a statement made in complete ignorance by someone who has never interacted with me in any forum, and who relies upon the most shallow and spiteful stereotypes of Mormon apologists possible.

But what I don’t get is that you are constantly making snide remarks, calling me a liar, saying I have a shared "ideology" with people who are hated on this forum, referring to Caswall as my "client,”

Oh, so it is a "snide remark" to refer to someone as a poster's "client," is it? Who knew?

I recall that you once described someone as my "client" in another forum. Were you merely being snide then, Kevin?

so on and so forth (I could make a list so long that I’d have to spread it out across two posts) and you do this for personal reasons, and you do it because you know you can get away with it. We both know you’re still upset about your train wreck in the other thread. I get it. That wasn’t your finest hour. But what I don’t get is that you claim to be seriously discussing this in a cordial manner without the personal jabs. I mean really, who do you think you’re kidding?

I'm not sure which other thread you are referring to. If you mean the KP/KEP thread (which, incidentally, I have not "abandoned" ) I'm quite happy with the results of that.

And if you can point to a single "personal jab" directed at you, by me, in this thread, that is not a direct reponse to some personal jab directed at me, by you, then I shall be mightily surprised.

If you were to refrain from personal jabs, Kevin, the total volume thereof would immediately reduce to zero.

Immediately. To zero.

How about it?

Wow, and yet a third thread to come?

No. Providing nothing untoward happens to this thread, it will all unfold here.

I predicted you’d be using Nibley, and lo and behold, you quickly defer to Nibley. Now I suspect you’re going to relay the same stuff that was in the rest of his piece or maybe Craig Foster’s article.

That wasn't much of a prediction, given that I directly referred to the Nibley piece in the OP. Yes, I'm quite pleased with that article. I'm also aware that the hatred and vilification heaped upon him by your clique makes my treatment of Caswall look downright sympathetic by comparison. It will take more than merely spitting out his name like an unsavoury epithet to discredit his scholarship, however.

There is no such a thing as the “Great Wagon Scene.” You place so much importance on something that Caswall himself admitted was only a suspicion of his. He never stated in absolute terms, that Joseph Smith was running away from him because he sensed a trap. It was always a suspicion. If he were lying about what he saw, why not remove the ambiguity? I mean he was lying right? So why not just make up something that cannot be reduced to or explained as a biased assumption? Why not just say he saw Joseph Smith running and that he heard him scream over his shoulder, “Sorry, but God told me this is a trap” or something to that effect? He doesn’t do anything of the sort as one might expect from a shameless liar. Instead, Caswall makes it clear he didn’t know for certain why Joseph Smith left the way he did. But for you and Nibley, it is crucial that much ado is made of the “wagon.” It is so important to you that you’ve given it a name: “Great Wagon Scene.” But the fact that it isn’t mentioned in all accounts is evidence that the point wasn’t as important to Caswall as you want it to be. Caswall’s point about Joseph Smith fleeing the scene is consistent throughout all accounts. One account mentions Joseph Smith leaving in a hurry via wagon, and the other simply says he left in a rush. This isn't a contradiction; it is one account providing more detail than the other.

Nice try. The fact is that in the 1842 account, the Great Wagon Scene is the climax of the story; it is what everything that has gone before has been building up to. Caswall's "another page in the great book of human nature" is the clichéd Victorian underline that announces the close of the scene. But the fact you can't address is that both accounts cannot simultaneously be true. The long wait of 1842 is impossible in 1843. If Joseph leaped into his wagon and drove off immediately, "as fast as possible," then why did it take so long for him to drive past his own front door? While Caswall's very British understatement makes him look like a wonderfully charitable fellow, the story he tells makes Joseph nothing but a crook fleeing in utter panic from the mere possibility of exposure; but where is it that he's terrified of being exposed? Not in the case of the Greek Psalter -- that has already been put firmly (and safely) away under wraps, never to be seen again -- but in Joseph's own papyrus, which he had shown to hundreds of visitors before and which he continued to cheerfully show to visitors afterwards!

Then what is with all this side-show drama, insinuating that I have gone silent (because heaven forbid I leave the thread for an entire 12 hours; I must be on the run!)

Simply applying your own standards, Kevin. According to you, none of your opponents ever grow tired of the constant back-and-forth; they invariably go silent or "flee the scene," so why should you be any different?

But since you have now realised that real life actually impacts peoples' posting patterns, perhaps you will be more charitable in the future. So perhaps I have been serviceable to you after all.

Snip personal sniping.

I don't like it because it is misleading and I showed that Nibley argues in ignorance

No, you did not. You certainly tried to show that; what you succeeded in showing was that you did not read Nibley's highly entertaining exposé very carefully.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited August 21, 2011 by Pahoran

[wenglund]

I don't for a second believe Joseph Smith fled in fear. I think he probably left abruptly, but for some other reason, probably an emergency...

I am pleased, and more than a little surprised to hear you say this. I had thought that Caswell's inflated self-perception (mis-thinking himself so powerful in his challenges as to cause his foes to flee in fear) would have been the part of his story to which you might most relate.

Whatever the case, does this mean that you don't believe anything Caswell said?

I ask because not long ago, in regards to W. Fugate's statement in relation to the Kinderhook hoax, you claimed that I couldn't pick and choose to accept only part of a person's statement, but must either accept all of it or none of it. Even though I didn't agree with you, I am wondering if you still hold to that view, or if that standard is something you only apply to apologists and not to yourself?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 21, 2011 by wenglund