Caswall And His Psalter, Part 2

[Pahoran]

1851: The Great Shift

=====================

In 1842, Caswall announced that he had obtained the Psalter and visisted Nauvoo for a specific purpose:

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

And it was supposed to be a perfectly straightforward, even easy test:

It was in vain I assured them that a slight acquaintance with Greek would enable any person to decipher its meaning.

And so, of course, Joseph failed it:

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." (Caswall, City of the Mormons)

Notice Joseph's grotesque hillbilly grammar, which all, including Caswall's ardent apologists, admit is heavily exaggerated. In 1843, in a shorter and less detailed, although equally specific account, Caswall emphasises this point:

His language is uncouth and ungrammatical, indicating very confused notions respecting syntactical concords. 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." (Caswall, Prophet of the 19th.)

So there it is: clear, emphatic and unequivocal. The whole purpose of Caswall's visit to Nauvoo was to test Joseph's scholarship. And when he failed the test, how did Caswall respond?

I replied that the prophet had given me no satisfaction, and that, on the contrary, he had proved his own ignorance most effectually. (Caswall, 1842.)

What was Caswall testing? Joseph's scholarship. In failing the test, what had Joseph proven? His ignorance. On this point, Caswall's story has so far remained consistent.

After his visit to Nauvoo, Caswall returned to England, published his accounts of his visit and was appointed to a rural living. For several years he supervised his parish, corresponded with anti-Mormons in England and America and nursed his resentments towards Joseph and the Mormons. Then in 1851 he published two more books: America, and the American Church and Mormonism and Its Author.

And at this point, Caswall's story undergoes a major shift:

In order to test the 'Prophet's' inspiration in regard to the dead languages, I had brought with me an ancient manuscript of the Greek Psalter, which I still retain as a valuable memorial of the event. Taking this in my hand, I crossed over to Nauvoo on Monday morning, and inquired for the 'Prophet.' (Caswall, The American Church p. 356, quoted in Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass

Hold the phone! Where did this come from? In three previous book-length accounts, Caswall has insisted that his Psalter test was all about Joseph's scholarship. Now, all of a sudden, he decides that all along he was really trying to test Joseph's inspiration.

So which was it?

Can anyone deny that this is a radical change in Caswall's story?

This is not to say that the topic of inspiration was altogether absent from Caswall's earlier efforts. In the very long verbatim accounts of the long religious arguments he had with various (all unnamed) Mormons in Nauvoo, the theme comes up several times. For instance:

"But," I proceeded, "it is now my turn to say something about your religion, since you have spoken freely of mine. It is easy for you to argue as you do about the descent of the Indians from Israel, the existence of miraculous powers in the Church, and the supposed errors and inconsistencies of professed Christians. In regard however to the real question at issue, on which your religion depends, namely, the inspiration of your prophet, you have not given me the slightest satisfaction." They requested me to state what evidence I should consider satisfactory. I replied, "When the Jewish dispensation was to be introduced, God enabled Moses to work great wonders with his rod. God smote a mighty nation with miraculous plagues. He divided the Red Sea and the River Jordan. He came down on Mount Sinai amid clouds and lightnings and the terrific sound of the trumpet of heaven. He caused Moses to strike the rock and the waters gushed forth. He rained down manna for the space of forty years in the wilderness. Again, when the Christian dispensation was to be established, Christ walked upon the waters; He controlled the winds and the waves; He fed assembled thousands with a few loaves and fishes; He healed the sick; He opened the eyes of the blind; He brought the dead to life: and finally. He raised Himself from the grave.

"You maintain that your prophet is sent to establish a third dispensation. I demand, therefore, what signs are given to prove his commission?"

Here we see that Caswall raises the subject of inspiration. This is in the street in front of the store, after Joseph has disappeared in a cloud of dust in his utter panic at being asked what a hieroglyphic symbol meant. But does it have to do with the Psalter? No! It's all about miracles and signs.

It comes up a little later on in the same argument:

Here they interrupted me and said that their preachers did not need the Bible, being immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost.

I interrupt Caswall's composition recollection to point out that this is not an authentic LDS teaching, but a caricature of one. It is correct that LDS "preachers" don't rely exclusively upon the Bible; but it has never been the case that they don't need it at all.

"No," I said, "it is not inspiration, it is a Satanic delusion. Your prophet himself has proved to me that he is not inspired, and I will make the fact known to the world. Would you believe a man calling himself a prophet, who should say that black is white?" "No," they replied "Would you believe him if he should say that English is French?" "Certainly not." "But you heard your prophet declare, that this book of mine is a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics, and, farther, that it is written in characters like those of the original Book of Mormon. I know it most positively to be the Psalms of David, written in ancient Greek. Now what shall I think of your prophet?" They appeared confounded for a while; but at length the Mormon doctor said, "Sometimes Mr. Smith speaks as a prophet, and sometimes as a mere man. If he gave a wrong opinion respecting the book, he spoke as a mere man." I said, "Whether he spoke as a prophet or as a mere man he has committed himself; for he has said what is not true. If he spoke as a prophet, therefore, he is a false prophet. If he spoke as a mere man, he cannot be trusted, for he spoke positively and like an oracle respecting that of which he knew nothing."

We shall have occasion to revisit this speech later on. But note here that, as of 1842/3, Joseph's inspiration is a kind of afterthought, incidental to the main point, which was that Joseph had "committed himself" by venturing an opinion on something "of which he knew nothing."

So in 1851, how can Caswall suddenly "remember" that he was really out to test Joseph's inspiration all along? So that we can know that this was no typo, Caswall emphasises the new direction in a new speech:

I then placed the book in his hands, and said, that as I had been told that he was a prophet of God, gifted with the power of understanding unknown tongues, I hoped he would explain its contents. (Caswall, Mormonism and Its Author p. 5, quoted in Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass)

But this speech is not found in any of Caswall's earlier writings! Why does it suddenly appear in 1851? To shore up his new tack.

Can anyone seriously argue that this is the same story Caswall has been telling all along?

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited August 22, 2011 by Pahoran

[Vance]

Deleted.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Vance

[Pahoran]

Correction?

Good catch!

And fixed.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DonBradley]

Hi all,

I'd like to weigh in on the significance of Caswall's narrative.

Caswall's interpretation of Joseph leaving as his fleeing before a challenging question doesn't sound like Joseph--on this, as on precious little else, everyone seems agreed. Joseph was willing to offer interpretations for all sorts of things, and was fully capable of declining doing so if he thought his questioner was disingenuous. There was simply no reason for him to flee the scene, nor is there precedent for his doing so when asked to interpret ancient script. So, whether Caswall simply made up Joseph leaving, intentionally misportrayed the reason for his leaving, or simply misinterpreted his leaving, it would appear that Caswall's bias against Joseph Smith's prophetic claims biased his report on this point.

Caswall's bias, which also comes out in the overall tone and flavor of his account of Joseph and of Nauvoo, should thus be expected to color his account of showing Joseph the Psalter. Caswall is a clergyman of a competing faith, and wants to discredit Mormonism. While this certainly does not render his account worthless as historical evidence, it provides a context for interpreting the details he provides.

Evidence from Caswall's account strongly suggests to me that there actually was a Psalter incident. Caswall seems vaguely aware of the KEP and their similarity of format to a Greek Psalter, a familiarity he could have gained only from Joseph Smith or someone in Joseph's inner circle (such as Dr. Willard Richards, who regularly staffed the office in which the GAEL was kept and had served as scribe for the Book of Abraham printer's manuscript).

Responding to these same clues, Chris Smith and I, though respectively a non-Mormon scholar and a Mormon scholar, have each independently concluded and stated on this board that Caswall's account thus reflects, but exaggerates, an actual statement from Joseph Smith (or perhaps a member of his inner circle). Likely Joseph (or possibly Richards) commented on the similarity of the Greek Psalter to the KEP, and Caswall capitalized on this by claiming Joseph had actually identified the Greek Psalter as a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics.

That Joseph would not have actually done so seems evident from a few lines of evidence:

First, Caswall reports that he told Joseph that the Psalter was, in fact, a Psalter and was in Greek.

Second, Joseph Smith was in a good position to distinguish Greek from Egyptian, having both studied Greek and spent a good deal of time examining Egyptian papyri.

Third, Caswall's claim would have Joseph Smith claiming that the Greek capitals were Egyptian when it is precisely the capital letters of Greek that are most obviously not Egyptian and are mostly identical to print capital letters in English.

Here are a couple examples of hand written Greek Psalters:

And here are the Greek capital letters, 14 out of 24 of which are identical to English print capitals:

That Joseph Smith would mistake these for Egyptian seems pure fantasy.

Caswall's claim that Joseph Smith identified the Greek Psalter as an Egyptian dictionary is not believable. Yet his account does seem to reflect, even as it distorts, a conversation with someone familiar with the format of the KEP. Caswall therefore cannot be treated as an impartial and reliable authority on the Psalter incident but does provide evidence for probably real conversation that happened during his visit to Nauvoo.

Caswall's exaggeration, which was intended as an attack on Joseph Smith, does not, when viewed in context, provide much basis for substantive criticism. But what if, instead of using Caswall's history as the weapon he shaped it to be, we used it, carefully and with proper qualification, as evidence of Nauvoo conditions and events in April 1843?

If truth is always the first casualty of war, then, unfortunately, historical truth is often, if not always, a casualty of polemics. An account like Caswall's is neither gospel nor trash; it's a historical source that (again, with proper contextualization and analysis) might help us better understand the past.

My personal wish for us, including you, Kevin, is that we will engage more in scholarship (which admittedly can have religious implications) than in the contentious war of words and tumult of opinions that is polemics.

Don

Edited August 23, 2011 by DonBradley

[wenglund]

Responding to these same clues, Chris Smith and I, though respectively a non-Mormon scholar and a Mormon scholar, have each independently concluded and stated on this board that Caswall's account thus reflects, but exaggerates, an actual statement from Joseph Smith (or perhaps a member of his inner circle). Likely Joseph (or possibly Richards) commented on the similarity of the Greek Psalter to the KEP, and Caswall capitalized on this by claiming Joseph had actually identified the Greek Psalter as a dictionary of Egyptian hieroglyphics.

This is how I tentatively read it as well (the formatting, at first glance, may have looked somewhat similar, whith a character in the left-hand column and the main text to the right). So, you can add me to the list, though under LDS non-scholars.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 23, 2011 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

John Taylor: Credible Witness

=============================

Mr Graham, in his Magnificently Impartial Search for Absolute TRVTH, has several times attempted to provide his perfectly fair and nuanced view of John Taylor's reliability as a witness by dismissing him with his favourite epithet of "proven liar."

No proof for this gentle assessment has been offered, nor is any really expected. However, instead of allowing the well to be poisoned in this way, I propose that we look at what he has to say and decide for ourselves how reliable it is.

First, let us see what John Taylor had to say about Caswall. This took place in a religious debate at Boulogne-sur-Mer in France, in July 1850. It was not the case, as some have asserted, that the Church "used" John Taylor "to come up with some story to contradict" Caswall. What really happened was that a group of English clergymen in France challenged Elder Taylor to a public debate. They offered Caswall's Psalter trick as evidence against Joseph Smith, and it was in response to them that Elder Taylor offered his recollection. Here is what he said:

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

Let us take this, point by point, looking at what has been disputed.

Elder Taylor said: "He came for the purpose of looking for evil." It has been suggested that this is mere well-poisoning. (Ironic, isn't it?) But what does Caswall say?

THE following narrative, the result of a few weeks' leisure on shipboard, is again presented to the public, with a deep sense, on the Author's part, of the iniquity of an imposture....

So Mr Caswall is exercised about the "iniquity" he finds in Mormonism, which he calls "an imposture." Later, he wrote:

Besides what I saw of the 'prophet' myself, and heard from his lips, I made many inquiries in the neighborhood of Nauvoo, from which I satisfied myself that Joseph Smith was even more wicked than I could have supposed.

There is no getting around it; if this means anything, it means that before he went to Nauvoo, Caswall already "supposed" that Joseph was wicked. A little bit wicked? No, very wicked, hence "even more" wicked. And how did Caswall feel upon discovering how "wicked" Joseph was? He felt "satisfied." I.e. he had found what he had come to Nauvoo looking for.

Conclusion: Caswall came to Nauvoo looking for evil. John Taylor is vindicated on that point.

Elder Taylor said: "He was a wicked man, and associated with reprobates, mobocrats, and murderers."

This, we are told, is simply an ad hoc attempt by the wicked John Taylor to make Caswall look bad. But again, what does Caswall say?

I mentioned the name of the gentleman who had received me into his house; upon which they used the most violent language against him, and said that he was their bitter enemy and persecutor, that he was as bad as the people of Missouri, and that I ought not to believe a word that he said.

So it turns out that what Elder Taylor said is, according to Caswall, the authentic, contemporary Mormon view of his principal non-Mormon associate and informant in Montrose. Whether this view is accurate or unbiased is not important; what matters is that Elder Taylor wasn't making anything up. Was Caswall at all perturbed or made cautious by the apparent ill-will between the Mormons and his host? Evidently not:

They again pressed me most earnestly not to return to Montrose; but I continued firm, and expressed my intention of hearing both sides of the question.

Which of course, he could have heard anywhere.

Elder Taylor said: "I saw Mr. Caswall in the printing office at Nauvoo; he had with him an old manuscript, and professed to be anxious to know what it was."

From Mr. Smith's residence I proceeded to the Mormon printing-office, where the official papers and "relations" [sic] of the prophet are published in a semi-monthly magazine, denominated the "Times and Seasons."... The storekeeper met me at the printing-office, and introduced several dignitaries of the "Latter-day Church," and many other Mormons, to whom he begged me to exhibit my wonderful book. While they were examining it with great apparent interest, one of the preachers informed me that he had spent the last year in England, and that, with the aid of an associate, he had baptized in that country seven thousand saints.

Caswall thus confirms that he did visit the printing office, and there met a number of "dignitaries," including one who identified himself as having returned from a mission in England the previous year. Caswall visited Nauvoo in April of 1842; John Taylor had returned from a mission in England in 1841.

Of course, Caswall does not name Elder Taylor, but that's not unusual; he doesn't actually name anybody except Joseph and his mother.

In fact, when it comes down to it, the only point on which Caswall and Taylor disagree is the point of whether anyone recognised Caswall's "wonderful book" as being Greek. Caswall says nobody did, but Taylor says he did.

Which of them told the truth?

Did John Taylor simply tell a tissue of lies to save face for Joseph?

If he did, why did he pass up the opportunity to make up a story that would help Joseph more directly? Why didn't he claim to have been in the upper room with Joseph and Caswall? Nobody could prove that he hadn't been there. He could have said anything at all, including that Joseph had correctly identified the Psalter and even read aloud from it. He was in France after all, and nobody at the debate was going to be able to pull out their iPhone and call anyone in America to check up on his story.

The fact that Elder Taylor did not attempt to make up a story that would directly vindicate Joseph seriously undermines any theory that he was merely lying for short-term advantage. On every point where his story can be checked, it checks out. When his reverend debate opponents tested his ability to recognise Greek -- using an apparently doctored manuscript -- he passed the test.

And he passes this one. John Taylor was a credible witness, honestly reporting what he had actually seen, heard and done.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited August 24, 2011 by Pahoran

[wenglund]

Elder Taylor said: "I saw Mr. Caswall in the printing office at Nauvoo; he had with him an old manuscript, and professed to be anxious to know what it was."

Caswall thus confirms that he did visit the printing office, and there met a number of "dignitaries," including one who identified himself as having returned from a mission in England the previous year. Caswall visited Nauvoo in April of 1842; John Taylor had returned from a mission in England in 1841.

Of course, Caswall does not name Elder Taylor, but that's not unusual; he doesn't actually name anybody except Joseph and his mother.

Taylor is as likely if not more so than anyone else in Nauvoo, particularly "dignitaries", to have been at the printing office since he was head of the editorial department there, and was likely to have been in the process of preparing the next edition of the Times and Seasons due out a couple of weeks after Caswell's visit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

John Taylor: Credible Witness

=============================

Mr Graham, in his Magnificently Impartial Search for Absolute TRVTH, has several times attempted to provide his perfectly fair and nuanced view of John Taylor's reliability as a witness by dismissing him with his favourite epithet of "proven liar."

No proof for this gentle assessment has been offered, nor is any really expected. However, instead of allowing the well to be poisoned in this way, I propose that we look at what he has to say and decide for ourselves how reliable it is.

First, let us see what John Taylor had to say about Caswall. This took place in a religious debate at Boulogne-sur-Mer in France, in July 1850. It was not the case, as some have asserted, that the Church "used" John Taylor "to come up with some story to contradict" Caswall. What really happened was that a group of English clergymen in France challenged Elder Taylor to a public debate. They offered Caswall's Psalter trick as evidence against Joseph Smith, and it was in response to them that Elder Taylor offered his recollection. Here is what he said:

Let us take this, point by point, looking at what has been disputed.

Elder Taylor said: "He came for the purpose of looking for evil." It has been suggested that this is mere well-poisoning. (Ironic, isn't it?) But what does Caswall say?

So Mr Caswall is exercised about the "iniquity" he finds in Mormonism, which he calls "an imposture." Later, he wrote:

There is no getting around it; if this means anything, it means that before he went to Nauvoo, Caswall already "supposed" that Joseph was wicked. A little bit wicked? No, very wicked, hence "even more" wicked. And how did Caswall feel upon discovering how "wicked" Joseph was? He felt "satisfied." I.e. he had found what he had come to Nauvoo looking for.

Conclusion: Caswall came to Nauvoo looking for evil. John Taylor is vindicated on that point.

Elder Taylor said: "He was a wicked man, and associated with reprobates, mobocrats, and murderers."

This, we are told, is simply an ad hoc attempt by the wicked John Taylor to make Caswall look bad. But again, what does Caswall say?

So it turns out that what Elder Taylor said is, according to Caswall, the authentic, contemporary Mormon view of his principal non-Mormon associate and informant in Montrose. Whether this view is accurate or unbiased is not important; what matters is that Elder Taylor wasn't making anything up. Was Caswall at all perturbed or made cautious by the apparent ill-will between the Mormons and his host? Evidently not:

Which of course, he could have heard anywhere.

Elder Taylor said: "I saw Mr. Caswall in the printing office at Nauvoo; he had with him an old manuscript, and professed to be anxious to know what it was."

Caswall thus confirms that he did visit the printing office, and there met a number of "dignitaries," including one who identified himself as having returned from a mission in England the previous year. Caswall visited Nauvoo in April of 1842; John Taylor had returned from a mission in England in 1841.

Of course, Caswall does not name Elder Taylor, but that's not unusual; he doesn't actually name anybody except Joseph and his mother.

In fact, when it comes down to it, the only point on which Caswall and Taylor disagree is the point of whether anyone recognised Caswall's "wonderful book" as being Greek. Caswall says nobody did, but Taylor says he did.

Which of them told the truth?

Did John Taylor simply tell a tissue of lies to save face for Joseph?

If he did, why did he pass up the opportunity to make up a story that would help Joseph more directly? Why didn't he claim to have been in the upper room with Joseph and Caswall? Nobody could prove that he hadn't been there. He could have said anything at all, including that Joseph had correctly identified the Psalter and even read aloud from it. He was in France after all, and nobody at the debate was going to be able to pull out their iPhone and call anyone in America to check up on his story.

The fact that Elder Taylor did not attempt to make up a story that would directly vindicate Joseph seriously undermines any theory that he was merely lying for short-term advantage. On every point where his story can be checked, it checks out. When his reverend debate opponents tested his ability to recognise Greek -- using an apparently doctored manuscript -- he passed the test.

And he passes this one. John Taylor was a credible witness, honestly reporting what he had actually seen, heard and done.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thanks for this superb analysis, Pahoran. From John Taylor's side of the story it is clear that Caswall fits right in with the general pattern of bigotry and sensational journalism that victimized the Church of of Jesus Christ in the Nauvoo era.

Ho-hum. Meh. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Taylor is as likely if not more so than anyone else in Nauvoo, particularly "dignitaries", to have been at the printing office since he was head of the editorial department there, and was likely to have been in the process of preparing the next edition of the Times and Seasons due out a couple of weeks after Caswell's visit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In fact, in the later years, Taylor's home was actually next to the printing office, as I recall and as reflected in the restored historic district in Nauvoo today.

Addendum: We should add that John Taylor was a keen observer and skilled reporter. We are indebted to him for knowing as much detail as we do about the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. I don't know that there could have been a better eyewitness.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Xander]

There is no getting around it; if this means anything, it means that before he went to Nauvoo, Caswall already "supposed" that Joseph was wicked. A little bit wicked? No, very wicked, hence "even more" wicked. And how did Caswall feel upon discovering how "wicked" Joseph was? He felt "satisfied." I.e. he had found what he had come to Nauvoo looking for.

Conclusion: Caswall came to Nauvoo looking for evil. John Taylor is vindicated on that point.

Pahoran is dissecting phrases out of their contexts to come up with these silly "vindications" but in the next breath Taylor says Caswall was a "wicked man." So yes, my claim that he was trying to poison the well stands on solid evidence. The only reason for calling him wicked is the fact that he exposed his beloved prophet as a fraud. That's it. And as we already know, John Taylor was more than willing to lie in order to defend his Prophet.

So it turns out that what Elder Taylor said is, according to Caswall, the authentic, contemporary Mormon view of his principal non-Mormon associate and informant in Montrose.

That he associated with murderers? Notice there is no evidence for this, though to Pahoran's line of reasoning, to be critical of the LDS faith is hardly any different since both critics and murderers are nothing more than sinful servants of Satan. This is his worldview. It is why he refers to everyone's else's perspective as a "Gentile" perspective. It is his way of poisoning the well also. He has to remind his LDS readers of the popular LDS myth that only the perspective of a loyal "Saint" can be trusted. These are the rhetorical devices he employs constantly throughout his diatribes, and he needs them in order to give his untenable position a sense of plausibility. But this only works for those already predisposed to such premises. Reasonable folks starting from scratch would never believe Caswall was just making this up, especially if someone like John Taylor was used as a character witness.

Whether this view is accurate or unbiased is not important

It is very important since that is what you need to vindicate.

what matters is that Elder Taylor wasn't making anything up. Was Caswall at all perturbed or made cautious by the apparent ill-will between the Mormons and his host? Evidently not:

What Pahoran doesn't understand is that this goes both ways. If Caswall is to be condemned for listening to side A simply because they are enemies to side B, then he is to be equally condemned for listening to side B since they are enemies to side A. We know from his account that he had many discussions with Mormons who he believed to be well-meaning, yet deceived people. His reasoning for viewing Joseph Smith as a wicked man comes just as much from LDS testimonies as those from his purported enemies. But what Pahoran glossed over is the fact that nothing in Taylor's account regarding "murderers" is substantiated. Pahoran simply thinks it is enough that Caswall spoke with people who considered Joseph Smith their enemy and persecutor. He doesn't even acknowledge the fact that if Joseph Smith were a fraud, then he would naturally have enemies. But since he remains fixated on this premise that he was called by God, all critics have to be unjustly critical of this beloved Prophet. And unjust criticisms come from evil naysayers. But if Caswall proved Joseph Smith was a fraud, then the opposite is true, since it would be not the Prophet, but rather his enemies who were on the side of truth. As we will see momentarily, John Taylor proved beyond all doubt that telling the truth is of little importance when the credibility of Mormonism is on the line. Like many zealous and devout Mormons, for Taylor, protecting the Church comes first, whereas truth comes sometime later... if it does come at all.

Caswall thus confirms that he did visit the printing office, and there met a number of "dignitaries," including one who identified himself as having returned from a mission in England the previous year. Caswall visited Nauvoo in April of 1842; John Taylor had returned from a mission in England in 1841.

What Pahoran ignores is the fact that Caswall's version was already published and known. So for Taylor to place himself in the printing office would be a natural thing to do.

In fact, when it comes down to it, the only point on which Caswall and Taylor disagree is the point of whether anyone recognised Caswall's "wonderful book" as being Greek. Caswall says nobody did, but Taylor says he did.

Yes, and more significant is that Taylor says nothing to contradict Caswall's claim that Joseph Smith mistook the Psalter for a dictionary. Nothing. All he did was say Caswall was lying when he said no one knew what he knew. This is a relatively minor point, but still doesn't constitute a refutation. It is merely a denial.

Which of them told the truth?

I'll have to go with the man who isn't a proven liar. Unfortunately, that doesn't include John Taylor, the man who at the same location lied to the European public about the polygamy in the American Church.

Did John Taylor simply tell a tissue of lies to save face for Joseph?

He probably met with Caswall in the printing office but the only evidence we have that he knew what the Psalter was, is his say so. This however becomes a he-said, he-said situation and the fact is there is no other evidence to support Taylor's contention. If he knew what the book was, one would suspect he would have informed his beloved Prophet, especially since he knew the man was up to no good. But instead we're left with no evidence from the LDS side that supports Taylor's view. None.

If he did, why did he pass up the opportunity to make up a story that would help Joseph more directly?

Probably because he wasn't aware of what the prosecution team had up their sleeves with respect to eye-witness testimony. It seems clear he wanted to throw out an example of a "lie" in order to discredit anything else Caswall had said. Ironic to say the least.

Why didn't he claim to have been in the upper room with Joseph and Caswall? Nobody could prove that he hadn't been there.

You don't know that. The Times and Seasons published on this incident and it didn't include his presence. Clearly there were those who could theoretically testify to the contrary if Taylor were to lie to such a degree. Why would he put himself in such a position if he didn't need to? He already floated the meme that he knew "first hand" that Caswall had lied about another (relatively minor) point. He discredited Caswall on that basis and that seemed to be all he needed to do.

He was in France after all, and nobody at the debate was going to be able to pull out their iPhone and call anyone in America to check up on his story.

The Caswall story was better known in Europe than back in the USA. That's why it became a debate topic only when he traveled there. He had no idea what eye-witness support Caswall claimed to have. It wasn't as if they had a preliminary meeting with full disclosure of evidence.

And he passes this one. John Taylor was a credible witness, honestly reporting what he had actually seen, heard and done.

That is a lovely apologetic fantasy, but unfortunately, those of us more interested in truth have to rely on those pesky little things called facts. In this case, the annoying fact that John Taylor explicitly lied about polygamy. Regarding polygamy, I'll quote an excerpt from Ann Young who makes the point very well:

It began by deception, it has been fostered by lies.

When the first rumor of its existence as a religious ordinance among the American Saints was first exciting Europe, and the American missionaries were assuring their converts that the rumor was false, and was started by their enemies to injure them and their cause, the most eloquent and remarkable denial of it was made by the Apostle John Taylor, at Boulogue-sur-Mer, where there was at that time quite a large and successful mission.

The Apostle Taylor was the husband of five wives, all living in Salt Lake; yet that slight matter did not hinder him from most emphatically repudiating the charge brought against the church. He quoted the Book of Mormon, dwelling particularly on the passage that expressly commands that a man shall have but one wife; then mentions the BIble command that as man shall have but one wife and cleave to her only; and made the sermon so strong and so convincing that no further proof was asked by those who heard him. His manner was impressive. He was sorrowful, he was indignant, he was reproachful; he was eloquent, and fervent, and almost inspired, thought those who heard him. He was logical and convincing in what he said. In short, he was a consummate hypocrite, lying in the name of God to a confiding people, with a smooth tongue and an unblushing face.

He employed a French lady - one of his converts, and a most charming and cultured paerson - to translate the sermon for him into her own language. He then had it published, and distributed largely through the country. Very many were kept from apostasizing by this tract, and a large number announced their intention of at once gathering to Zion. Among them was the lady who had translated the sermon for Taylor, and who, influenced by the spirit of discourse, and the seeming earnestness of the missionary, had become more zealous than ever in her devotion to her new and ardently beloved faith.

Imagine, if you can, her horror, on reaching Utah, at the social state of affairs which found her there, and discovered that she not only had been grossly deceived, but, in her ignorance, had helped to deceive so many others; for it was through the influence of her translation of Taylor's denial that nearly all the party with whom she emigrated had come. She apostasized aat once, but she was conscience-striken at the part where she had so unwittingly played, and could not be comforted. A more remorseful and grief-stricken woman was never seen, and she felt all the more deeply the harm that had been wrought, when she saw how powerless she was to undo it. (Ann Young, Wife Number 19, pp. 329-330

The relevant portion of Taylor's tract reads:

"We are accused here of polygamy,... and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief;... I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. 'Doctrine and Covenants,' page 330... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death,..."'

(page 8, also see Orson Pratt's Works, 1851)

So while being married to multiple women in Utah, John Taylor was in Europe trying to ease everyone's concerns over polygamy, by insisting no one in the Church, Joseph Smith included, was engaged in such a practice. A practice he claimed was obscene and disgusting, using the same scriptures the Evangelicals used to repudiate polygamy. Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing! This guy would later become the Prophet of the Church!

John Taylor was same man who was so devoted to Joseph Smith, that he was willing to hand over his wife to him upon his request. He was more than willing to lie for his cause, and the evidence for this is irrefutable and indisputable. Apologists have tried to dismiss the lies about polygamy as a necessity considering the social conditions that posed a threat to the Church. It was just an unfortunate means to an end, etc. However, one cannot reasonably use these liars as "credible" witnesses in other contexts such as these, when it has been established that it is precisely these conditions by which they feel compelled to put aside their alleged principles and willingly deceive their audiences.

This is Pahoran's "credible witness"??

Edited August 27, 2011 by Xander

[Zakuska]

So who exactly is this anonymous "Mr. K" of Montrose with whom Caswell boarded?

I wonder why he would withhold something so important about his story as to be able to fact check:

From Mr. Smith's residence I proceeded to the Mormon printing office, where the official papers and "revelations" of the prophet are published in a semi-monthly magazine, denominated the "Times and Seasons." Here I purchased this magazine complete for the last year, the history of the persecution of the Mormons by the people of Missouri, and other documents of importance. The storekeeper met me at the printing-office, and introduced several dignitaries of the "Latter-day Church," and many other Mormons, to whom he begged me to exhibit my wonderful book. While they were examining it with great apparent interest, one of the preachers informed me that he had spent the last year in England, and that, with the aid of an associate, he had baptized in that country seven thousand saints. He had visited the British Museum, where he affirmed that he had seen nothing so extraordinary as my wonderful book. The Mormon authorities now formally requested me to sell them the book, for which they were willing to pay a high price. This I positively refused, and they next importuned me to lend it to them, so that the prophet might translate it. They promised to give bonds to a considerable amount, that it should be forthcoming whenever I requested it. I was still deaf to their entreaties, and having promised to shew the book to their prophet on the ensuing day, I left them and returned to Montrose.

After tea Mr. K. provided me with a horse, and, in company with him, I took a delightful ride upon the prairie. The grass was of an emerald green, and enamelled with the beautiful wild flowers of spring. Far to the North West a line of bluffs seemed to bound the prairie at the distance of eight or ten miles, while in other directions it extended as far as the eye could reach. Numerous clumps of forest trees appeared at intervals, and herds of cattle were reposing on the grass or feeding on the rich herbage. The scene was one of novel and striking interest, and I felt pained at the reflection that so fine a region seemed destined to be given up to the followers of a mischievous delusion. Upon an eminence near Montrose, I was shewn the tomb of Kalawequois, a beautiful Indian girl of the tribe of Sacs and Foxes. She died recently at the early age of eighteen, having lingered six years in a consumption. She was buried on this spot by moonlight, with all the ancient ceremonies of her nation. Adjoining her grave was the tomb of Skutah, a full-blooded Indian "brave," and a distinguished warrior of the same tribe.

On arriving at the house of Mr. K. my hospitable entertainer, I was informed by him that the Mormons on the Iowa side of the river had been busily engaged in trying to find out who I was, and whence I came. They had generally come to the conclusion that I was a convert to Mormonism recently arrived from England.

Mr. K. stated, that previously to the arrival of the Mormons, his only neighbours were the Indians, with whom he lived on the most friendly terms. Nothing could exceed their honesty and good faith in all their intercourse with him: and although heathens, Mr. K. considered them superior in morality and common sense to the "latter-day saints." Keokuk is the present chief of the Sacs and Foxes, having succeeded to the jurisdiction on the demise of the venerable Black Hawk, who died of grief at the age of eighty, in consequence of the treatment

http://www.freeficti...aswall?start=12

Or perhaps that was his intent... not being able to check facts.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Zakuska

[wenglund]

Xander,

While critical thinkers will tend to judge a person's statements on its merits, I am just trying to understand your bizarre way of thinking. Do you consider, solely on the basis of Taylor's polygamous views and practices, that everything Pres. Taylor has ever said is discredited (regardless of its relevance to polygamy), or just those things Taylor witnessed to in conflict with the non-polygamous story from your beloved Caswell--some of which even you didn't believe for a minute?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

Once again we see the pattern: Pahoran provides evidence and analysis; Xander responds with personal, spiteful, gratuitous remarks.

Pahoran is dissecting phrases out of their contexts to come up with these silly "vindications" but in the next breath Taylor says Caswall was a "wicked man." So yes, my claim that he was trying to poison the well stands on solid evidence. The only reason for calling him wicked is the fact that he exposed his beloved prophet as a fraud.

That's false. Caswall came to Nauvoo "looking for evil." That is a fact, clearly demonstrated from his own writings. A further fact, also clearly demonstrated from his own writings, is that Caswall was more than willing to allege the existence of evil he did not find, such as the fictitious Nauvoo ordinance. Is that a righteous thing to do, Kevin, or is it a wicked thing to do?

Take your time. Think it over.

And Kevin, you are at liberty to respond or not, as you please. But if you choose to respond to this post, I must rather insist that you respond to this point. If not, then we will be forced to conclude -- just as with the case of the fictitious Nauvoo ordinance, on which you went very loudly silent in the midst of your bloviations -- that you have no answer, and lack the integrity to admit it.

That's it. And as we already know, John Taylor was more than willing to lie in order to defend his Prophet.

"We already know" no such thing. That is a Grahamism, an unsupported, agenda-driven accusation. You merely repeat it as though it were universally accepted -- which, of course, it is not.

That he associated with murderers? Notice there is no evidence for this, though to Pahoran's line of reasoning, to be critical of the LDS faith is hardly any different since both critics and murderers are nothing more than sinful servants of Satan.

That's false. Your spiteful, gratuitous mind-reading is a waste of our bandwidth. I invite you to edit your post and remove it.

This is his worldview. It is why he refers to everyone's else's perspective as a "Gentile" perspective. It is his way of poisoning the well also. He has to remind his LDS readers of the popular LDS myth that only the perspective of a loyal "Saint" can be trusted.

You are making that up out of whole cloth, as usual. I invite you to remove that from your post also.

These are the rhetorical devices he employs constantly throughout his diatribes, and he needs them in order to give his untenable position a sense of plausibility. But this only works for those already predisposed to such premises. Reasonable folks starting from scratch would never believe Caswall was just making this up, especially if someone like John Taylor was used as a character witness.

And yet you, of all people, have the spectacular hypocrisy to accuse John Taylor, of all people, of "poisoning the well!"

It is very important since that is what you need to vindicate.

No, Pahoran doesn't need to "vindicate" that at all. In order to vitiate the spiteful epithet of "LIAR!!!" flung at John Taylor by hate-crazed fanatics, all I need to do WRT this point is show that what he said represents how the Latter-day Saints genuinely viewed Caswall's "kind informant and entertainer." However biased their view might have been, it was nevertheless their view. In sharing the authentic view of his co-religionists, John Taylor was not making anything up, and attempts to poison the well against him will have to proceed from other grounds.

What Pahoran doesn't understand is that this goes both ways. If Caswall is to be condemned for listening to side A simply because they are enemies to side B, then he is to be equally condemned for listening to side B since they are enemies to side A.

But Caswall had, by his own account, come to Nauvoo to meet and converse with Joseph and the Mormons. Contrary to your spin, I am not arguing that "Caswall is to be condemned for listening to" anti-Mormons; the point is that he fails to allow for the possibility that said anti-Mormons might be prejudiced against the Saints. Yet having gone to all the trouble and expense of travelling all the way to Nauvoo, he spent, as Hugh Nibley points out (insert obligatory outburst of rage and spite here) approximately five-sixths of his time gathering gossip from his anti-Mormon buddy, and repeating it as if it were reliable information; and without ever once showing any sign of caution in accepting that gossip.

We know from his account that he had many discussions with Mormons who he believed to be well-meaning, yet deceived people. His reasoning for viewing Joseph Smith as a wicked man comes just as much from LDS testimonies as those from his purported enemies.

According to Caswall. But none of those "LDS testimonies" have ever surfaced anywhere else. Why not? Because he made them up.

But what Pahoran glossed over is the fact that nothing in Taylor's account regarding "murderers" is substantiated.

Here is what Caswall said:

I mentioned the name of the gentleman who had received me into his house; upon which they used the most violent language against him, and said that he was their bitter enemy and persecutor, that he was as bad as the people of Missouri, and that I ought not to believe a word that he said.

Tell me, Kevin: what was it that characterised the anti-Mormons of Missouri? That they, like you, were so prejudiced as to automatically assume that every word uttered by a Mormon was a lie? Well no, the record doesn't show that they were quite that bigoted, but they made up for the shortfall with overt, orchestrated acts of violence; murderous violence, that is.

Pahoran simply thinks it is enough that Caswall spoke with people who considered Joseph Smith their enemy and persecutor.

Fascinating. It was the Saints who, according to Caswall, described his "kind entertainer" as their "enemy and persecutor," and now Kevin quite consciously takes their view of his anti-Mormon informant, and turns it into that anti-Mormon's view of Joseph Smith.

A rather fascinating insight into the Kevin Graham method, that.

He doesn't even acknowledge the fact that if Joseph Smith were a fraud, then he would naturally have enemies.

That "fact," if fact it is, is irrelevant, since if Joseph were what he claimed to be, he would likewise have enemies. The existence of such enemies is neither here nor there, and accordingly I have not tried to argue from it.

But since he remains fixated on this premise that he was called by God, all critics have to be unjustly critical of this beloved Prophet. And unjust criticisms come from evil naysayers. But if Caswall proved Joseph Smith was a fraud, then the opposite is true, since it would be not the Prophet, but rather his enemies who were on the side of truth. As we will see momentarily, John Taylor proved beyond all doubt that telling the truth is of little importance when the credibility of Mormonism is on the line. Like many zealous and devout Mormons, for Taylor, protecting the Church comes first, whereas truth comes sometime later... if it does come at all.

And yet you, of all people, have the spectacular hypocrisy to accuse John Taylor, of all people, of "poisoning the well!"

What Pahoran ignores is the fact that Caswall's version was already published and known. So for Taylor to place himself in the printing office would be a natural thing to do.

Pahoran "ignores" no such thing; that accusation is yet another Grahamism. Caswall's self-serving account has him wandering all around Nauvoo with his book under his arm, while vast crowds of people gather around him, begging for a look at its mysterious pages, and who, despite being a bunch of credulous fanatics, listen with remarkable patience to his long-winded impromptu sermons. If John Taylor was just making stuff up, it would be equally "natural" for him to "place himself" anywhere. But the fact is that, as everyone but an anti-Mormon fanatic will admit, the only direct evidence we have is that John Taylor was present in the printing office, and Caswall's own account provides indirect support for that claim. As indeed you reluctantly admit, below.

Yes, and more significant is that Taylor says nothing to contradict Caswall's claim that Joseph Smith mistook the Psalter for a dictionary. Nothing.

Indeed it is more significant; because, as I pointed out, John Taylor passed up the temptation to make something up, which signifies that he wasn't making anything up. That's why it is significant: it lends credence to what John Taylor did testify to.

End of Part 1.

[Pahoran]

Reply to Xander, Part 2.

All he did was say Caswall was lying when he said no one knew what he knew. This is a relatively minor point, but still doesn't constitute a refutation. It is merely a denial.

Caswall made specific claims about what the Mormons in Nauvoo said about his "wonderful book." Taylor refutes those claims. And Taylor is a credible witness, a fact denied by no "reasonable folks."

I'll have to go with the man who isn't a proven liar.

In which case, you can't possibly go with Caswall. As you perfectly well know, Caswall lied about the fictitious Nauvoo ordinance, a fact you cannot refute and lack the integrity to admit.

Unfortunately, that doesn't include John Taylor, the man who at the same location lied to the European public about the polygamy in the American Church.

Did he? According to whom?

He probably met with Caswall in the printing office but the only evidence we have that he knew what the Psalter was, is his say so. This however becomes a he-said, he-said situation and the fact is there is no other evidence to support Taylor's contention.

Nor is there any evidence to contest Taylor's eyewitness testimony.

If he knew what the book was, one would suspect he would have informed his beloved Prophet, especially since he knew the man was up to no good. But instead we're left with no evidence from the LDS side that supports Taylor's view. None.

Thank you for the obligatory sneer: "his beloved prophet." You really can't help yourself, can you?

But it's interesting that you should say that "one would suspect he would have informed" Joseph. In 1851, Caswall introduced a new detail; he then decided that Joseph had "been previously informed by his people of my wonderful book." Which of "his people" might have "previously informed" him? John Taylor, maybe?

Probably because he wasn't aware of what the prosecution team had up their sleeves with respect to eye-witness testimony.

It doesn't get much weaker than this. As you know, the meeting with Joseph took place in Joseph's own house. As you know, the ever-shrinking "crowd" consisted of Joseph's friends and co-religionists. And if Taylor "wasn't aware of" who might be waiting to ambush him about the meeting in the upper room, he similarly "wasn't aware of" who might be waiting to ambush him about the meeting in the printing office. If he had lied about the one meeting, as you idly and baslessly accuse, he'd have no reason not to lie about the other.

Snip snotty remark.

You don't know that. The Times and Seasons published on this incident and it didn't include his presence. Clearly there were those who could theoretically testify to the contrary if Taylor were to lie to such a degree. Why would he put himself in such a position if he didn't need to? He already floated the meme that he knew "first hand" that Caswall had lied about another (relatively minor) point. He discredited Caswall on that basis and that seemed to be all he needed to do.

So all you have to offer in rebuttal to John Taylor's personal testimony is baseless speculation. The Times and Seasons three-sentence, 88-word account doesn't name anyone apart from Joseph and Caswall, so its not naming John Taylor is irrelevant.

The Caswall story was better known in Europe than back in the USA. That's why it became a debate topic only when he traveled there. He had no idea what eye-witness support Caswall claimed to have. It wasn't as if they had a preliminary meeting with full disclosure of evidence.

And it wasn't as if there were ever any eyewitnesses to Caswall's fabrications anyway. The English clergymen who yapped at Elder Taylor's heels from England to France with Grahamesque zealotry relied upon three books to make their case for them. The discussion centred around the claims made in those books.

That is a lovely apologetic fantasy, but unfortunately, those of us more interested in truth have to rely on those pesky little things called facts.

Then it's about time you started relying upon them. But I guess you'd have to become more interested in the truth first, and less interested in your ugly polemical fantasies.

In this case, the annoying fact that John Taylor explicitly lied about polygamy. Regarding polygamy, I'll quote an excerpt from Ann Young who makes the point very well:

We shall properly ignore Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning's gossippy moralising and pass to your deceitful mishandling of Elder Taylor's statement. You quoted him thus:

The relevant portion of Taylor's tract reads:

"We are accused here of polygamy,... and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief;... I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. 'Doctrine and Covenants,' page 330... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death,..."'

But let's look at what he actually said:

We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore leaving the sisters of the "White Veil," the "Black Veil," and all the other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose of, together with their authors, as they think best, I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. "Doctrine and Covenants," page 330.

Taylor went on to read the relevant section from the Doctrine and Covenants then applicable. Of course it is a fact that John Taylor had no right to publicise a practice that was being kept secret at the time; but what did he actually deny? What false assertions did he make?

And what is all this about the "white veil" and so on, that Kevin so helpfully elided from his quotation?

Well, it turns out that John Taylor's response was an answer to a direct question put to him by one of his opponents. Relying upon John C. Bennett's tissue of Grahamisms, the Reverend Mr James Robertson "testified that Joseph Smith kept up a seraglio of 'Sisters of the White Veil,' and 'Sisters of the Green Veil'." After repeating some more absurd Bennett lies, he then "demanded distinctly of Mr. Taylor what was the nature of the sisterhood of the White and Green Veil."

There were, of course, no such seraglios or "sisterhoods," and John Taylor's answer on that score was correct. By reading from the former Section 101, he avoided directly addressing the question of whether he or any of the other brethren had plural wives; indeed, since that section was still considered binding upon the overwhelming majority of Latter-day Saints who had not been given permission to enter into plural marriage, it was in fact the most relevant information as far as any French converts at that time were concerned.

Was John Taylor completely forthcoming about Plural Marriage? I readily admit that he was not. But he did not tell the lies that Kevin fantasises about.

End of Part 2.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Reply to Xander, Part 3.

So while being married to multiple women in Utah, John Taylor was in Europe trying to ease everyone's concerns over polygamy, by insisting no one in the Church, Joseph Smith included, was engaged in such a practice.

I'm sorry, but where does he actually say, much less "insist," that? Your source does not support your accusation, not even after you doctored it.

A practice he claimed was obscene and disgusting, using the same scriptures the Evangelicals used to repudiate polygamy.

Another Grahamism. What did Elder Taylor say was "obscene and disgusting?" John C. Bennett's fabrications about seraglios and "sisterhoods;" that's what.

Can't you at least make an effort to keep your own false accusations straight?

Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing! This guy would later become the Prophet of the Church!

Well, he was a better man than you.

And lest you feel compelled to misrepresent the above statement as an insult towards you: John Taylor was a very good, brave, unselfish man, and better than a great many of his contemporaries, and all of his critics; not just you.

John Taylor was same man who was so devoted to Joseph Smith, that he was willing to hand over his wife to him upon his request. He was more than willing to lie for his cause, and the evidence for this is irrefutable and indisputable.

Not quite. See above.

Apologists have tried to dismiss the lies about polygamy as a necessity considering the social conditions that posed a threat to the Church. It was just an unfortunate means to an end, etc. However, one cannot reasonably use these liars as "credible" witnesses in other contexts such as these, when it has been established that it is precisely these conditions by which they feel compelled to put aside their alleged principles and willingly deceive their audiences.

This is Pahoran's "credible witness"??

Yes.

More credible than Caswall.

And more credible than you.

Because Kevin, as you and I both know, had John Taylor accused Joseph of wrongdoing, you would delightedly overlook anything he said that was less than completely forthcoming, and welcome him with open arms as an ideological bedfellow. His status as a "proven liar" rests upon nothing more or less than the fact that he was (1) a Mormon, (2) whom you would like to discredit.

Just like absolutely everyone else at whom you have hurled that epithet.

Your attempt to discredit John Taylor as a witness has failed. I suggest you try to find some other way to resurrect Caswall's credibility.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

Xander-- "Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing! This guy would later become the Prophet of the Church!"

Kind of like this sword toting dude!

Matthew 26:74

74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the **** crew.

Imagine... the Prophet of the church attacking an inocent by stander with a sword and then swearing and lieing his teeth out trying to save his skin from being arrested.

I guess according to xander we can throw anything Peter ever said out the window.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Zakuska

[wenglund]

Pahoran,

You are doing an excellent job of demonstrating who really lacks credibility in this matter. However, after reading Kevin's posts, I am caused to wonder why a few years ago FAIR stopped giving out the Phalatus Hurlbut award.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

The Very Wonderful Book.

========================

An important feature of Caswall's story is the reaction of the Saints to his "very wonderful book." Once again, we shall see how Caswall tells the story:

I mentioned that I had been informed that Mr. Smith possessed some remarkable Egyptian curiosities, which I wished to see. I added that, if Mr. Smith could be induced to show me his treasures, I would show him in return a very wonderful book which had lately come into my possession. The storekeeper informed me that Mr. Smith was absent, having gone to Carthage that morning; but that he would return about nine o'clock in the evening. He promised to obtain for me admission to the curiosities, and begged to be permitted to see the wonderful book. I accordingly unfolded it from the many wrappers in which I had enveloped it, and, in the presence of the storekeeper and many astonished spectators, whom the rumour of the arrival of a strange book had collected, I produced to view its covers of worm-eaten oak, its discoloured parchments, and its mysterious characters. Surprise was depicted on the countenances of all present, and, after a long silence, one person wiser than his fellows, declared that he knew it to be a revelation from the Lord, and that probably it was one of the lost books of the Bible providentially recovered. Looking at me with a patronizing air, he assured me that I had brought it to the right place to get it interpreted, for that none on earth but the Lord's Prophet could explain it, or unfold its real antiquity and value.

So the Mormons were showing up in droves at the mere mention of a "strange book."

Really?

And then one of them pronounces that it is something that "none but the Lord's Prophet" could read.

How interesting....

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

"Something supernatural?" And they all thought that?

Really?

Did it really not occur to a single one of them that an old book could be an ordinary human artifact?

Of course, we already have John Taylor's straightforward and perfectly credible rebuttal to Caswall's account of what transpired in the print shop. But let us set that aside for a moment and let the Downright Reverend gentleman tell his story.

The storekeeper met me at the printing-office, and introduced several dignitaries of the "Latter-day Church," and many other Mormons, to whom he begged me to exhibit my wonderful book. While they were examining it with great apparent interest, one of the preachers informed me that he had spent the last year in England, and that, with the aid of an associate, he had baptized in that country seven thousand saints. He had visited the British Museum, where he affirmed that he had seen nothing so extraordinary as my wonderful book. The Mormon authorities now formally requested me to sell them the book, for which they were willing to pay a high price. This I positively refused, upon which they importuned me to lend it to them, so that the prophet might translate it. They promised to give bonds to a considerable amount, that it should be forthcoming whenever I requested it. I was still deaf to their entreaties, and having promised to exhibit the book to their prophet on the ensuing day, I left them and returned to Montrose.

And it just gets better! Note that this all takes place before Caswall met Joseph; the Mormons have already decided that his bundle of parchment was more "extraordinary" than the antiquities in the British Museum, and they're ready to splash out loads of dosh to acquire the book before Joseph had clapped eyes on it, or even heard of its existence.

Who really thinks this story is credible? I mean, really?

"But," I can hear someone cry, "surely it must be the truth! What reason would Caswall have to lie about this?"

What reason indeed?

As already pointed out, Caswall has no reason to lie or exaggerate about anything at all, if his core story is true. And yet, even his most enthusiastic defenders admit that he exaggerated heavily on a number of points, and have no answer for the fact that he lied about several others. So if he's prepared to exaggerate and misrepresent what Joseph looked like and said, why not what he did?

If Caswall's core story is true, then all this build-up is entirely superfluous and unnecessary. But what if his core story is not true? Let us take that as a working hypothesis and look again at the supposed reaction of the Mormons to Caswall's "wonderful book." What does it mean as they ooh and aah and gasp, in unison and on cue?

This would function as plot development. Caswall's anonymous Mormon multitude is foreshadowing the central act, when their leader and spokesman says just what his followers anticipated that he would say. Thus, Joseph's ridiculous speech, instead of coming out of left field, appears as the expected culmination of what has gone before.

In this light, Caswall's Mormons, in their role as a kind of Victorian adaptation of a Greek Chorus, do exactly what he needs them to do. Just like fictitious characters in works of fiction always do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Xander]

While criticalthinkers will tend to judge a person's statements on its merits, I am justtrying to understand your bizarre way of thinking. Do you consider, solely onthe basis of Taylor's polygamous views and practices, that everything Pres. Taylorhas ever said is discredited (regardless of its relevance to polygamy), or justthose things Taylor witnessed to in conflict with the non-polygamous story fromyour beloved Caswell--some of which even you didn't believe for aminute?

What? My argument isperfectly clear. John Taylor has a history of making things up or flat outlying for the sole purpose of protecting Joseph Smith. This is a simple fact.He lied in France with respect to polygamy. Period. This makes him anunreliable witness, especially in situations where Joseph Smith's credibilityis on the line. He is in fact the last person we'd expect to give a full andhonest account of anything he may have known about the situation.

Once again we seethe pattern: Pahoran provides evidence and analysis; Xander responds withpersonal, spiteful, gratuitous remarks

It is hard to imagineyou writing this with a straight face. Anything that I have said that couldpossibly be interpreted as personal or spiteful, has been directed at your starwitness whom you decided to rely upon; whereas all your personal and spitefulremarks are directed at me.

That's false.Caswall came to Nauvoo "looking for evil." That is a fact, clearlydemonstrated from his own writings. A further fact, also clearly demonstratedfrom his own writings, is that Caswall was more than willing to allege theexistence of evil he did not find, such as the fictitious Nauvoo ordinance. Isthat a righteous thing to do, Kevin, or is it a wicked thing to do?

I suppose I can concedethis point. I understood the phrase "looking for evil" in the sameway I would understand the phrase "looking for trouble." Thoselooking for trouble are usually understood as the troublemakers. However, ifyou're saying Caswall was merely trying to expose a preexisting evil, and notthat he was there to create evil, then I can agree that this is what he wasdoing. However, the context of Taylor's comments make this unlikely as hisoriginal intent.

And Kevin, you areat liberty to respond or not, as you please. But if you choose to respond tothis post, I must rather insist that you respond to this point. If not, then wewill be forced to conclude -- just as with the case of the fictitious Nauvooordinance, on which you went very loudly silent in the midst of yourbloviations -- that you have no answer, and lack the integrity to admitit.

If you are referring tothe Nauvoo law he referenced, then how can you say this is proof he is a liarwhen the fact is you do not know if he was making it up or whether it wassomething he came to believe to be true because of rumors. We both know thathad an LDS authority or LDS scholar made some erroneous comment legislation,the apologists would tolerate no accusations of lying or deception since wedon't "know all the facts." We'd be told that he was just a man andthat he wasn't an expert of civil law. We'd be told that there are a number ofplausible scenarios by which this person could have been told such a thing weretrue. But when the subject is a Protestant minister, then there can be no otherpossibility than an outright intent to deceive, right? This is what we call adouble-standard.

"We alreadyknow" no such thing. That is a Grahamism, an unsupported, agenda-drivenaccusation. You merely repeat it as though it were universally accepted --which, of course, it is not.

Well, let me rephrase.We, outside the cognitive sanctuary of LDS apologetics, know that John Taylorlied to his French audience regarding polygamy. I don't expect you or mostpeople here to accept facts simply because they are facts. You have no probleminsisting it is a fact that Caswall is an intentional deceiver because he saidsome things that were untrue, but at the same time refusing to apply that samsstandard to your own LDS sources.

BTW, I expect you toreproduce a refutation of this charge from a previous FARMS article, if oneexists. From what I can tell, one doesn't. Which makes me wonder if you're thefirst LDS apologist to go on record and deny that it is true. From myexperience, apologists have pretty much blown it aside and fallen back on olefaithful: the apologetic excuse that says these were just fallible men. I meanif apologists can concede that Joseph Smith lied, what is the big deal inconceding the same for his most faithful servant John Taylor? The man who waswilling to hand over his own wife, simply because Joseph Smith told him to.

That's false.Your spiteful, gratuitous mind-reading is a waste of our bandwidth. I inviteyou to edit your post and remove it.

I invite you to prove mewrong by following a single standard. Is there a reason why you glossed overTaylor's claim that he associated with murderers?

And yet you, ofall people, have the spectacular hypocrisy to accuse John Taylor, of allpeople, of "poisoning the well!"

Why is it hypocrisy topoint out your star witness has no credibility? He lied, period. You haven'trefuted this. All you've done is complain that I point out the fact that helied. And hey, if you can show one example of me lying about anything, feelfree to share. I have nothing to hide. I'm not the one safely secure behind apseudonym.

[Xander]

Part 2

No, Pahorandoesn't need to "vindicate" that at all. In order to vitiate thespiteful epithet of "LIAR!!!" flung at John Taylor by hate-crazedfanatics

Why are you so indignantabout calling someone a liar? You do this on a regular basis with people youdon't even know. You've called me a liar several times, although you have neverprovided any evidence that I have lied about whatever it is you think I havelied about.

, all I need todo WRT this point is show that what he said represents how the Latter-daySaints genuinely viewed Caswall's "kind informant and entertainer."

Again, because how the faithfulview things trumps all other perspectives, right? If you are trying to prove mypoint above, then well done.

However biasedtheir view might have been, it was nevertheless their view. In sharing theauthentic view of his co-religionists, John Taylor was not making anything up,and attempts to poison the well against him will have to proceed from othergrounds.

I'm not clear what yourargument is here. Are you saying John Taylor's lies about polygamy weren'treally lies because there were Mormons present who didn't protest the fact thathe was lying? (Please let this be your argument!)

But Caswall had,by his own account, come to Nauvoo to meet and converse with Joseph and theMormons.

And he did. Why is ithard to imagine him spending more time speaking with members of the generalpublic than with Joseph Smith?

Contrary to yourspin, I am not arguing that "Caswall is to be condemned for listeningto" anti-Mormons; the point is that he fails to allow for the possibilitythat said anti-Mormons might be prejudiced against the Saints.

But you allow for thepossibility that the Mormons might be prejudiced against Caswall? Where in yournumerous apologetic quips is this possibility acknolwedged? It is strange thatyou would expect him to act as if he were a typical paranoid Mormon who thinksall critics are Satan's servants. But there is no reason for him to share yourbiased and hyper-paranoid perspective about "anti-Mormons." He listened to Mormons and what they had tosay, and he also listened to those who considered Joseph Smith their enemy. Youhave no way to judge whether their complaints towards Joseph Smith or theirfeelings of being persecuted were justified. You're just upset because Caswallhad the audacity to listen to both sides. Saying he should have considered thepossibility that those non-Mormons were highly biased anti-Mormons who wereprone to lying is ridiculous. Only LDS folks think in these terms, because itis a conditioned mindset that comes from being a Mormon for any amount of time.One of the first things you learn as a Mormon is that everyone else is out toget you. You're God's eternally persecuted Saint. If anyone says anythingcritical about your faith, it is because he or she is acting on Satan's behalf.

Yet having goneto all the trouble and expense of travelling all the way to Nauvoo, he spent,as Hugh Nibley points out (insert obligatory outburst of rage and spitehere)

No need. I alreadypointed out you were merely parroting Nibley. It is fun watching you try torepackage his failed apologetic, Pahoran-style.

approximatelyfive-sixths of his time gathering gossip from his anti-Mormon buddy, andrepeating it as if it were reliable information; and without ever once showingany sign of caution in accepting that gossip.

I've already addressedyour warped sense of caution and discernment. We already know Mormons approachnon-Mormons with extreme caution. After all, affiliating with the wrong"Gentile" could cost you your temple recommend. But expecting therest of us to exist in such a constant state of paranoia, is just silly. Whywould we?

According to Caswall.But none of those "LDS testimonies" have ever surfaced anywhere else.Why not? Because he made them up.

You have no evidence ofthis. But thank you for once again demonstrating your double-standard. You haveno problem judging Caswall as a liar simply because there is no testimonialsupport from any of the Nauvoo "Saints." For you this is all you needto call him a liar.

Tell me, Kevin:what was it that characterised the anti-Mormons of Missouri? That they, likeyou, were so prejudiced as to automatically assume that every word uttered by aMormon was a lie?

And you have theaudacity to ask me to edit my posts after making such ludicrous anddemonstrably false quips. Do yourself a favor and stop trying to drag all thehonest Mormons into the bad mix of dishonest Mormons. I've never oncegeneralized in this way, even if you do. Nothing I have ever said couldreasonably be interpreted as me "automatrically assuming every worduttered by a Mormon was a lie." But I see you never pass up an opportunityto poison the well.

Well no, therecord doesn't show that they were quite that bigoted, but they made up for theshortfall with overt, orchestrated acts of violence; murderous violence, thatis.

So you're saying I amworse than a bunch of murderers. Nice. The sincerity of your constantcomplaining about personal jabs can no longer be in question. Thanks for makingthis perfectly clear. As to your absurdleap of logic, there is no reason to think "murderer" should be substitutedfor "as bad as the people of Missouri" if that is what he meant byit. You're engaging in the usual mind-reading in order to conjure up your"evidence." But you do so by trying to recreate the data to meet yourpredetermined conclusion, not vice versa. To generalize all Missourians asmurderers is just ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that you’re relying onlyon a Mormon claim about what this fellow is like; a fellow who was alreadydescribed as an objection of Mormon persecution.

Fascinating. Itwas the Saints who, according to Caswall, described his "kindentertainer" as their "enemy and persecutor," and now Kevinquite consciously takes their view of his anti-Mormon informant, and turns itinto that anti-Mormon's view of Joseph Smith

Yes, but before he citedthe Mormons, Caswall had already described this fellow as “an object ofconstant persecution.” So the context of his story says exactly what I said. Itsaid. This “anti-Mormon” viewed himself a victim of Mormon persecution. And funnyyou should delete the context, which was:

“I mentioned thename of the gentleman who had received me into his house; upon which they usedthe most violent language against him, and said that he was their bitter enemyand persecutor, that he was as bad as the people of Missouri, and that I oughtnot to believe a word that he said. They again pressed me most earnestly not toreturn to Montrose; but I continued firm, and expressed my intention of hearingboth sides of the question.”

Thismakes perfect sense given what we see on a daily basis here on these forums aswell as Mormon life in general. If anyone ever rejects Mormonism and becomescritical of it, that person is immediately black-balled in the worst way by theMormons. This is done for the sole purpose of discrediting anything they haveto say. You do this all the time, and in fact, you’re doing it right now.

And yetyou, of all people, havethe spectacular hypocrisy to accuse John Taylor, of all people, of"poisoning the well!"

I am simply explaining what is happening here. You are the one whodragged Taylor into your “fun” and now you have to deal with the fact that hehas no credibility as a proven liar. No well poisoning is needed.

Pahoran "ignores" no such thing; that accusation isyet another Grahamism. Caswall's self-serving account has him wandering allaround Nauvoo with his book under his arm, while vast crowds of people gatheraround him, begging for a look at its mysterious pages, and who, despite beinga bunch of credulous fanatics, listen with remarkable patience to hislong-winded impromptu sermons. If John Taylor was just making stuff up, itwould be equally "natural" for him to "place himself"anywhere.

Where he claimed to be is secondary to what he claimed to have said.But all of this is beside the point really, since Taylor never claimed to havebeen present when Joseph Smith spoke with Caswall.

[Xander]

Part 3

But the fact is that, as everyone but an anti-Mormon fanaticwill admit, the only directevidence we have is that John Taylor was present in the printing office, andCaswall's own account provides indirect support for that claim. As indeed youreluctantly admit, below.

“Reluctant”? Caswall never mentioned Taylor by name, no. He mentioned no one by name except the Prophet. We already covered this. Taylor’s presencein the printing office at the time Caswall was there is only supported byTaylor’s claim. But as I said, this is irrelevant anyway. What you need toprove is that Caswall lied about what happened during his encounter with JosephSmith.

Indeed it is more significant; because, as I pointed out, JohnTaylor passed up the temptation to make something up, which signifies that hewasn't making anything up. That's why it issignificant: it lends credence to what John Taylor did testify to.

I understand the point you think you are making, but I reject it onlogical grounds. What you are saying is this. Unless you lie about everything,you can’t be lying about anything! Do you seriously have no clue how ridiculousthis argument is? You seem to think you can pass along any kind of nonsense your confirmation bias machine produces, and we’re just supposed to see it as asound argument.

Caswall made specific claims about what the Mormons inNauvoo said about his "wonderful book." Taylor refutes thoseclaims.

You have trouble understanding basic definitions. To “refute”something means to prove it incorrect. All John Taylor did was deny somethingCaswall said happened, a year later only when prompted to in a debate. The factthat you think this is a “refutation” pretty much establishes my previous pointthat you really do believe all LDS testimonies should be taken for granted,simply because they are LDS.

And Taylor is a credible witness, a fact denied by no"reasonable folks."

Reasonable folks do not considered proven liars “credible.” Sorry, butit is what it is. You’re left trying to convince faithful followers; those whoreally need no convincing to begin with.

In which case, you can't possibly go with Caswall. As you perfectlywell know, Caswall lied about the fictitious Nauvoo ordinance, afact you cannot refute and lack the integrity to admit.

I know no such thing and neither do you. But again, thanks forpointing out why right I am about your double-standard. When it comes to theirrefutable evidence proving some LDS folks are liars, you bend over backwardstrying to defend them while attacking me for daring to call them such. But seehow easily it is for you to label a critic a liar? All you need is for him tosay something that you perceive to be false. No real research is required todetermine whether or not this person genuinely believed it to be true, orwhether such an ordinance was in the works, or whether this was something hecame to believe after some Mormons used it as a means to muzzle his criticisms.None of these possibilities are considered because you need the critic to be a liar,as that suits your agenda, as well as your worldview.

Did he? According to whom?

This is according to Taylor’s own words, which he had published.You’re really not up to speed on this are you? Too bad Nibley didn’t write upan apologetic piece for this, otherwise you could just cut and paste hisarguments on this matter too. Looks like you’re on your own on this one.

Nor is there any evidence to contest Taylor'seyewitness testimony.

I already said this is a he-said, he-said situation. I cannot useCaswall to prove nobody in Nauvoo knew what the Psalter was any more than youcan use Taylor to prove he did. But whether someone or no one knew this, isbeside the point, making Taylor’s testimony irrelevant.

But it's interesting that you should say that "one wouldsuspect he would have informed" Joseph. In 1851, Caswall introduced a newdetail; he then decided that Joseph had "been previously informed by hispeople of my wonderful book."

Yes, informed that Caswall had a book, but obviously not informed ofwhat it was.

Which of "his people" might have "previouslyinformed" him? John Taylor, maybe?

And here is your problem. Taylor would have certainly told his debateopponents that Joseph Smith was well aware of what the book was, if in fact hedid.

It doesn't get much weaker than this. As you know, the meetingwith Joseph took place in Joseph's own house. As you know, the ever-shrinking"crowd" consisted of Joseph's friends and co-religionists. And ifTaylor "wasn't aware of" who might be waiting to ambush him about themeeting in the upper room, he similarly "wasn't aware of" who mightbe waiting to ambush him about the meeting in the printing office. If he hadlied about the one meeting, as you idly and baslessly accuse, he'd have noreason not to lie about the other.

Fair enough. But you’re still left with a he-said, he-said situationon a relatively minor point. There are plenty of reasons why Taylor would havelied about this while not engaging in a much deeper lie. He was probably amongthose present at the printers-office that day, which might be why he feltcompelled to say something his experience there. But lying about this is onething. Lying about an incident for which there is no evidence he ever attended,is quite another. So I have no problem seeing him lying about this incidentjust to discredit Caswall, while at the same time not engaging in a lie-festthat covers denials of everything Caswall claimed during his stay in Nauvoo.Again, your argument is that Taylor must be lying about everything or nothing.It doesn’t get much weaker than that.

So all you have to offer in rebuttal to John Taylor's personaltestimony is baseless speculation. The Times and Seasons three-sentence,88-word account doesn't name anyone apart from Joseph and Caswall, so its notnaming John Taylor is irrelevant.

Why are we spending so much time on an irrelevant testimony? We’renever going to know with certainty who was lying about this. Whether Taylorknew what the Psalter was, or whether no one did. And Taylor’s testimony isirrelevant. You are trying to use it to prove Caswall lied about something,just so you can in turn discredit everything he says. But you can’t. All you’releft with is this silly line of reasoning that says Taylor must have beentelling the truth because if he were lying, he would have lied more.

Then it's about time you started relying upon them. But Iguess you'd have to become more interested in the truth first, and lessinterested in your ugly polemical fantasies.

Such rhetoric is a poor excuse for your ignorance on this matter.

We shall properly ignore Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning'sgossippy moralising and pass to your deceitful mishandling of Elder Taylor'sstatement. You quoted him thus

Ah, but you have no reason to believe she engaged in “gossipy moralizing”other than the fact that it suits your confirmation bias to think this way. Again,proving what I said earlier to be true. For you, all you need to know iswhether the person is LDS or critic. At that point your mind is already made upas to whether or not the unflattering information about your Church is true orfalse.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Part 4

But let's look at what he actually said:

Apparently you ignored the part where I said it was the “relevant”portion of the tract, proving he lied about polygamy Your decision to focus onirrelevant commentary about colored “veils” is pretty darn funny.

Taylor went on to read the relevant section from the Doctrineand Covenants then applicable.

Well Gee, Pahoran, why wouldn’t you cite this portion unless you’retrying to hide something? Here is what Taylor cited from the D&C:

“Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ hasbeen reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that webelieve that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband”

Thus, when faced with charges of polygamy, he presents this in response. This by any stretch of the definition is lying. Spin it however you want Pahoran, it will only make you look more foolish. The fact is John Taylor intentionally deceived his audience to protect his beloved Prophet. But this is what we know to be true of his character. Even Samuel Taylor, John’s grandson, had this to sayabout his character:

"Joseph Smith , speaking to the group after the troubles at Zion ... "Whatever you do, do not betray your friends."

This became Taylor's creed. Until the end of his life he was to be at war, fightingone battle after another for the faith. There could be no compromise, noquarter; for him it would be the Kingdom of God, or nothing; all or none. Thegreatest crimes of war were treason, betrayal, and giving aid and comfort tothe enemy. Truth was a relative thing.A basic rule of war was to confuse and mislead the enemy; any device to this end was justified. Apostates-traitors-were to berejected utterly, denounced as complete liars, their characters destroyed.Treason was the greatest crime, not because the traitor lied, but because herevealed war secrets, the truth.

JohnTaylor would never again from this moment admit to any fact, regardless of the evidence, that involved violation of this creed."

So much for your “credible” witness. Even his family knew that was a laugh.

And what is all this about the "white veil" and so on, that Kevin sohelpfully elided from his quotation?

Irrelevant. As I said, I posted the “relevant” portion. To fully understand the comments about colored veils, we’d have to veer of the subject at hand and read more context than a single post would allow. Now I understand how derailing would suit your purposes, but sticking to the subject suits mine.

Therewere, of course, no such seraglios or "sisterhoods," and JohnTaylor's answer on that score was correct.

Maybe, maybe not. You’re not in any position to dictate one way or the other. However, it is irrelevant as I said. You’re just fishing for a way to take the focus off the subject, which is John Taylor’s public denial of polygamy.

Byreading from the former Section 101, he avoided directly addressing the questionof whether he or any of the other brethren had plural wives

Yes, it was a most deceptive tactic that he employed. But it served the same purpose of deceiving his audience. He knew every one of them would come away from that debate believing he had explicitly denied polygamy.

indeed,since that section was still considered binding upon the overwhelming majorityof Latter-day Saints who had not been given permission to enter into pluralmarriage, it was in fact the most relevant information as far as any Frenchconverts at that time were concerned.

You’re embarrassing yourself.

Was John Taylor completely forthcomingabout Plural Marriage? I readily admit that he was not.

That is the mother of all understatements. He didn’t just fail to share all the details, he in fact threw up a deceptive front, alluding to scripture that explicitly denied polygamy. Now why on earth would he want to do this unless he wanted his audience to believe the charges were false, and that he and other Church leaders were innocent of the charge?

But he did not tell the lies that Kevin fantasises about.

All I can say is John Taylor would be proud of you. You have rebuked the critics withoutany regard for truth. You put the Church first and that is all that matters. AsSamuel Taylor admitted, this was a popular tactic in the early Church, and wesee the tactic has survived many a generation Only an LDS apologist can sitthere with a straight face and name-call to discredit every perceived critic, basedon scant evidence and suspicions, while at the same time exonerate their fellowbelievers from wrong doing in the face of incriminating evidence out the yang.

The fact is John Taylor was accused of polygamy in a debate and he responded by citing scriptures that rejected polygamy and he even called it the “most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting” doctrine.

You heard it right here folks. According to Pahoran, John Taylor didn’t lie at all, becausehe didn’t explicitly say “No I do not practice polygamy.” In fact, I am the liar for saying he lied!

Welcome to the apologetic mind at work. Where truth takes the backseat every time.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

What? My argument isperfectly clear. John Taylor has a history of making things up or flat outlying for the sole purpose of protecting Joseph Smith. This is a simple fact.He lied in France with respect to polygamy. Period. This makes him anunreliable witness, especially in situations where Joseph Smith's credibilityis on the line. He is in fact the last person we'd expect to give a full andhonest account of anything he may have known about the situation.

Had your "argument" been "perfectly clear," then you could have and would have easily answered my question. You didn't, and we both know why. But, feel free to carry on in your typical evasive, overly hostile, and quixotic fashion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 30, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

If only you were half as important as you think wade.This debate never included you and I try not to read your posts because debate with you is impossible and you really do little more than ask a billion questions and/or cheerlead for someone else while refusing to answer questions directed at you. In this case, Pahoran is your man, the guy who is failing miserably now as a credible apologist because he refuses to accept the obvious fact that Taylor deceived his audience intentionally.

So keep going wade with what you do best.... "Rah rah ree, kick em in the knee..."

[Zakuska]

If only you were half as important as you think wade.This debate never included you and I try not to read your posts because debate with you is impossible and you really do little more than ask a billion questions and/or cheerlead for someone else while refusing to answer questions directed at you. In this case, Pahoran is your man, the guy who is failing miserably now as a credible apologist because he refuses to accept the obvious fact that Taylor deceived his audience intentionally.

So keep going wade with what you do best.... "Rah rah ree, kick em in the knee..."

And the epitamy of ethical behavior Henry Caswell did not?

What planet are you living on Xander?

Did he lie about the Nauvoo ordinance or not? A Yes or No will suffice.

You've already admited that he exagerated beyond belief as well as made up many of the facts in his story.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Zakuska