Caswall And His Psalter, Part 2

[LeSellers]

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

While we're about it, it might be nice to conjecture as to why he did (always assuming he did, of course).

There have been, in living memory, widely known individuals whose modus operandi was (and remains) to lie when the truth would do; perhaps it would serve him even better. These people are difficult to understand. But most of us, when we lie, do so because something motivates us to do so. I will not try to paint the Rev Caswell as a congenital liar, so we must assume he had some motivation for fabricating his deception.

I am left wondering what it was in this particular case.

Lehi

[wenglund]

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..."

This appears to be a new addition to your ever expanding list of ways you invariably wipe up the floor with your opponents--or so you think (we in the real world call it evasive delusion). I lose because neither me nor my comments are of any importance. I lose by virtue of being snubbed by the most important critic. I don't know how I can go on? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

And the epitamy of ethical behavior Henry Caswell did not?

What planet are you living on Xander?

Did he lie about the Nauvoo oridnance 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.

Let's go easy on Kevin's sacred texts. By his own words, Caswell's story is like scripture to him (he compared it to the First Vision account). Keep in mind the 11th Article of Faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

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

LOL!

Was that wade's impossible to answer "gotcha" question?

This proves that none of you are reading anything except Pahoran's responses, because I already addressed this in my previous response to him.

In short, we don't have enough information to know if he "lied" about it because we don't know if it was something he knew to be false. I doubt he would make something like this up, because it would make no sense to do so. He probably heard it from one of the many Mormon conversations he had while in town, as it was probably thrown up as a warning not to be disparaging towards their precious Prophet. And it made sense that a Mormon town would make such a law. Did they? Probably not at the time. Was there talk of proposing such a law? Probable, but at the very least possible. It is perfectly consistent with the way in which the Church has traditionally handled criticism: by suppressing it and threatening members with excommunication for associating with the wrong people or saying the wrong things.

After all, this would be consistent with what we later saw with the Nauvoo expositor. The early Church had a serious problem with "apostates" revealing truths that Joseph Smith was trying to keep hidden. Their expose of his polygamy led to the destruction of their private property, all under teh excuse that they were going to create a nuisance.

Yes, truth often does that. This is why Taylor had to lie while in France. Truth was a nuisance.

[Zakuska]

Yes, truth often does that. This is why Taylor had to lie while in France. Truth was a nuisance.

Yeah I know what you mean... father Abraham felt the same way in Egypt.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Zakuska

[Xander]

This appears to be a new addition to your ever expanding list of ways you invariably wipe up the floor with your opponents--or so you think (we in the real world call it evasive delusion). I lose because neither me nor my comments are of any importance. I lose by virtue of being snubbed by the most important critic. I don't know how I can go on? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Don't kid yourself wade. You've never worked your way up to the level of an "opponent."

You're just jumping in now because your buddy is up on the ropes and you feel bad about it. I get it.

But don't think for a second I'm going to let up and follow you down your bunny trail interrogation sessions.

Yes, you're that predictable.

Sorry.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Xander

[Zakuska]

While we're about it, it might be nice to conjecture as to why he did (always assuming he did, of course).

There have been, in living memory, widely known individuals whose modus operandi was (and remains) to lie when the truth would do; perhaps it would serve him even better. These people are difficult to understand. But most of us, when we lie, do so because something motivates us to do so. I will not try to paint the Rev Caswell as a congenital liar, so we must assume he had some motivation for fabricating his deception.

I am left wondering what it was in this particular case.

Lehi

Thats a wonderful Idea. I read one of the source papers linked earlier and it was all about Caswells life. How he grew up, where he went to school etc. etc.

It suggested that much of what Coswell did was out of jealousy for how successful "an absolute scowndrel Joseph Smith" was. Even stealing some of his own congregation.

But then again... the Pharasees said the same thing about Christ and his Apostles dubing him... he who associates with sinners adultueres, thieves and liars.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Zakuska

[Xander]

Thats a wonderful Idea. I read one of the source papers linked earlier and it was all about Caswells life. How he grew up, where he went to school etc. etc.

It suggested that much of what Coswell did was out of jealousy for how successful "an absolute scowndrel Joseph Smith" was. Even stealing some of his own congregation.

But then again... the Pharasees said the same thing about Christ and his Apostles dubing him... he who associates with sinners adultueres, thieves and liars.

Figures. Typical LDS smear campaign. That's how critics are dealt with normally.

Oh, and the comparison to Jesus is also typical, but equally ludicrous. Jesus didn't have to lie to people in order to get them to convert.

John Taylor was Joseph Smith's closest and most loyal friend. He learned well from him that in order to keep the Church growing, the leadership must constantly deceive potential converts. It is why Joseph Smith lied about polygamy, and it is why John Taylor followed his example. From Smith to Taylor all the way on down to modern apologetic tactics, the need to lie in order to keep members at bay and the converts coming in, is a tradition no article of faith has been able to break. Truth has always been a nuisance for Mormons and it has always been the preferred weapon of choice by the critics. But you cannot attack the truth, so you attack those who uphold it instead.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Minos
Removed from thread for insults

[wenglund]

Don't kid yourself wade. You've never worked your way up to the level of an "opponent."

You're just jumping in now because your buddy is up on the ropes and you feel bad about it. I get it.

But don't think for a second I'm going to let up and follow you down your bunny trail interrogation sessions.

Yes, you're that predictable. Sorry.

Oh dear...things are even worse than I thought. As another lame excuse for evading reasoned queries, the dictator of all truth has dismissed me and my comments as predictable and less than an opponent. Yet, I must be of at least some importance to elicit at least two comments from him today alone. I am so confused. LOL

However, it is good to finally see The all-important and omniscient and omnipotent one suggesting that accusations of lying can't legitimate be made in cases where it is uncertain whether the accused knew the truth or not--though it is not like the all-important one can be held to the same standard he obliges of others. He, of course, is above such things (at least in his own mind).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Figures. Typical LDS smear campaign. That's how critics are dealt with normally.

:rofl: Please...stop....Kevin. You are killing me with your rank hypocrisy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

Figures. Typical LDS smear campaign. That's how critics are dealt with normally.

Oh, and the comparison to Jesus is also typical, but equally ludicrous. Jesus didn't have to lie to people in order to get them to convert.

John Taylor was Joseph Smith's closest and most loyal friend. He learned well from him that in order to keep the Church growing, the leadership must constantly deceive potential converts. It is why Joseph Smith lied about polygamy, and it is why John Taylor followed his example. From Smith to Taylor all the way on down to modern apologetic tactics, the need to lie in order to keep members at bay and the converts coming in, is a tradition no article of faith has been able to break. Truth has always been a nuisance for Mormons and it has always been the preferred weapon of choice by the critics. But you cannot attack the truth, so you attack those who uphold it instead.

So you mean to tell me Kevin that these aren't the words of a frustrated jealous man?

"As a Churchman, I fell almost ashamed for my Church, when I reflect upon the heavy discouragements which are suffered to afflict the amiable and the patient missionary bishop of Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin.... Why is Kemper College, the first and only institution of the Church beyond the Mississippi, permited to langusih, while the Mormon Temple, and the Mormon University, offer their delusive attractions to the rising generation? Why is the venerable bishop of Illinous permitted to labour almost alone, while the missionaries of Joseph Smith, with the zeal worthy of the true Church, permbulate his diocese and plant their standard in every village?"

-- Henry Caswall, City of the Mormons

Yes we can truely see what Caswells motivation was. Down with the "false" prophet at all costs. They did the same thing to Jesus and his Apostles and the Prophets of Old. Nothing New under the sun really.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Zakuska

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LOL!

Was that wade's impossible to answer "gotcha" question?

This proves that none of you are reading anything except Pahoran's responses, because I already addressed this in my previous response to him.

In short, we don't have enough information to know if he "lied" about it because we don't know if it was something he knew to be false. I doubt he would make something like this up, because it would make no sense to do so. He probably heard it from one of the many Mormon conversations he had while in town, as it was probably thrown up as a warning not to be disparaging towards their precious Prophet. And it made sense that a Mormon town would make such a law. Did they? Probably not at the time. Was there talk of proposing such a law? Probable, but at the very least possible. It is perfectly consistent with the way in which the Church has traditionally handled criticism: by suppressing it and threatening members with excommunication for associating with the wrong people or saying the wrong things.

After all, this would be consistent with what we later saw with the Nauvoo expositor. The early Church had a serious problem with "apostates" revealing truths that Joseph Smith was trying to keep hidden. Their expose of his polygamy led to the destruction of their private property, all under teh excuse that they were going to create a nuisance.

Yes, truth often does that. This is why Taylor had to lie while in France. Truth was a nuisance.

Lol

Seriously Xander, you need to get out more, and this is how you "address" things? This is about the lamest thing I have ever read on this board. There is not a shred of evidence for the fictitious Nauvoo Ordinance and I am not aware of any other source for this ordinance than Caswall.. And I don't need worthless conjecture and speculation on your end that "We don't know enough that he knew it was false".

But I think it will be highly entertaining to watch you twist everything to fit your agenda. Go ahead and come up with another explanation. Should be fun to watch.

[Ares]

Make the thread about the topic and not each other please.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

:rofl: Please...stop....Kevin. You are killing me with your rank hypocrisy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Don't worry Wade, we don't know if Kevin knew it was hypocrisy. He probably just heard some Mormons talking about it. I mean we have dealt with this before. And Kevin just might have to mop up the floor with us?

Edited August 30, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Make the thread about the topic and not each other please.

Trying really really hard.

[wenglund]

Trying really really hard.

I feel your pain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

Since Xander has been removed from the thread, it would be less than sporting -- and rather pointless -- to go into a long point-by-point rebuttal of his arguments, even setting aside his personal jabs. However, there are a few legitimate points that deserve to be addressed.

John Taylor recollected that Caswall came to Nauvoo "looking for evil." Xander interpreted that as "looking for trouble," i.e trying to make trouble, and suggested that my view was that he was "merely trying to expose a preexisting evil." This isn't quite accurate either. I understand Taylor to mean that Caswall was looking for occasion to accuse. He was "looking for evil" in the same way as a tabloid journalist, determined to get a juicy story, whether there was one to find or not.

In support of his blanket dismissal of everything that John Taylor had to say, Xander recruited Samuel W. Taylor, John Taylor's grandson, and triumphantly smirked:

Even his family knew that was a laugh.

All I will say about that is that a second-generation apostate grandson who was born twenty years after his grandfather died is hardly an unbiased, first-hand witness.

On the fictitious Nauvoo ordinance, which he previously tried to ignore, Xander pleads for charity towards Caswall on the grounds that he wasn't a legal expert and that he may have heard about it from rumours.

Indeed, we know where he heard about it: he read it in John C. Bennett's book, which he explicitly referenced as his source.

This book was published after Caswall left Nauvoo.

But Caswall claimed that knowledge of the fictitious ordinance made him feel grateful to escape unpunished while he was at Nauvoo and before the source for that fictitious ordinance was published.

IOW, he doesn't just say that the ordinance existed -- a point on which he could conceivably be honestly mistaken -- but he deliberately worked something he later read back into his own reminiscences as if he had personally experienced it.

If anyone can show how Caswall is to be acquitted of lying on this occasion, I'd be delighted to see it.

By contrast, John Taylor does not, in Xander's words, have "a history of making things up or flat out lying for the sole purpose of protecting Joseph Smith." The one and only example Xander could produce of John Taylor being less than completely honest about something was when he didn't announce to a French audience that the Church practiced polygamy.

However, contrary to what Xander previously argued, Elder Taylor did not "explicitly deny" the existence of plural marriage; nor did he "insist no one in the Church, Joseph Smith included, was engaged in such a practice." These accusations are false. We can legitimately say that John Taylor was less than forthcoming, even evasive on the question; but he did not actually lie.

Nor did he call it "the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting doctrine." That claim was false.

John Taylor was answering a direct question that had been put directly to him by one of his opponents. James Robertson directly asked John Taylor "what was the nature of the sisterhood of the White and Green Veil." Xander loftily brushed that aside, pretending it was not "relevant." Apparently he really believes that, despite the fact that it was absolutely relevant, since that is what Elder Taylor was replying to.

The so-called "sisterhoods" of the "white and green veil" were a product of John C. Bennett's filthy imagination; they were "seraglios," i.e. brothels, supposedly established in Nauvoo for the entertainment of Joseph and the other leading brethren. That filthy lie is what John Taylor described as "actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived."

That filthy lie is the whole context of Taylor's reply. It also had the potential to completely determine the audience's view of Mormon plural marriage. Allowing them to believe that Mormon polygamy was a system of "seraglios" would have deceived them far more effectively than letting them believe there was no polygamy at all.

Would any anti-Mormons really mind that, though? I guess we'll never know.

Xander plays a whole lot of word games in his attempt to accuse John Taylor of lying when he said that he recognised Caswall's Psalter as Greek. Note that his technique is poisoning the well par excellence: he has no basis to question what Elder Taylor actually said; he merely orders us to reject it on the basis that it was Elder Taylor who said it. And he dodges around the fundamental issue: if Elder Taylor was going to "make something up" about Caswall's visit, why would he not "make something up" about his meeting with Joseph Smith? The fact that he makes no such attempt demonstrates two things: (1) That he had no reason to do so, because the truth was good enough; and (2) that the reckless and spiteful accusation that Elder Taylor had "a history of making things up or flat out lying for the sole purpose of protecting Joseph Smith" is false.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

On the fictitious Nauvoo ordinance, which he previously tried to ignore, Xander pleads for charity towards Caswall on the grounds that he wasn't a legal expert and that he may have heard about it from rumours.

Indeed, we know where he heard about it: he read it in John C. Bennett's book, which he explicitly referenced as his source.

This book was published after Caswall left Nauvoo.

But Caswall claimed that knowledge of the fictitious ordinance made him feel grateful to escape unpunished while he was at Nauvoo and before the source for that fictitious ordinance was published.

IOW, he doesn't just say that the ordinance existed -- a point on which he could conceivably be honestly mistaken -- but he deliberately worked something he later read back into his own reminiscences as if he had personally experienced it.

Ouch! Would someone please get Kevin the smelling salt.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 31, 2011 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

What was Caswall's Plan?

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

As we have seen, Caswall from the first insisted that he had obtained his Psalter and taken it to Nauvoo for a singular and 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.

Moreover, the test of scholarship was supposedly a simple and straightforward one:

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

It couldn't be any simpler, could it? If Joseph could read Greek, he could read Caswall's Psalter. If he couldn't read the Psalter, he couldn't read Greek.

And not only that, he wasn't even asking Joseph to read it, but merely to identify it:

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."

Joseph's great blunder, in Caswall's book (or books) was that he confidently identified the Psalter as something it was not. And that after Caswall told him what it was!

But why would Caswall expect Joseph to do that? Clearly he did expect it, otherwise why tell Joseph what it was up front?

Well, as Mr Graham, Caswall's doughty champion, has admitted, Caswall's "test of his scholarship" was really a trick "designed to entrap him." Hugh Nibley explains the trick here.

Caswall's Psalter was not written in standard Greek that most students would recognise; it was in a paleographic script known as Minuscule (not to be confused with miniscule, which just means small.) Some examples of Minuscule Greek manuscripts can be found here.

The experts tell us that the language is Greek all right, but the script is very difficult to read. To those unfamiliar with it, it doesn't even look like Greek.

So why did Caswall choose it?

Because that was the trick. After parading around Nauvoo insisting loudly that it was a straightforward document that anyone who knew Greek could read, he was going to shove a manuscript under Joseph's nose that probably no-one in America at the time could read! Once he confessed himself unable to read it, Caswall would take it away, place it in its many envelopes and announce that Joseph had "committed himself."

So apart from anything else, we now know that the Reverend Gentleman himself was, to coin a phrase, a "proven liar."

And as far as I can tell, the only reason anyone gives him any credence at all is purely for ideological reasons.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

So What Really Happened?

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

As noted above, Henry Caswall claimed to have visited Nauvoo with a very specific purpose: to expose Joseph Smith as an ignoramus. To be sure he wouldn't fail, he armed himself with a manuscript that nobody in America could read, and went around announcing how easy it would be for anyone who knew any Greek to read it. As soon as Joseph admitted he couldn't read it, Caswall would announce to the world that Joseph had proved his ignorance.

So, why didn't it turn out the way Caswall had planned? Why would Joseph contradict Caswall by telling him it was something it wasn't? What would he gain from that?

The more we think about Caswall's story, the more questions arise: Why did Caswall see a need to make Joseph seem as ridiculous as possible by so absurdly exaggerating his grammar? And why did he keep working the story over and "improving" it as the years went by?

We have already seen how John Taylor refuted Caswall's claim that every Mormon who saw his book thought it was "something supernatural;" he himself had thought it was a Greek manuscript. The only response anyone has provided to this has been to snarl that Taylor was a "proven liar" because of something he said on an unrelated subject, and therefore everything he said should be automatically rejected.

But Taylor's is not the only Mormon recollection of Caswall's visit. In October of 1843, the Times and Seasons published the following in an unsigned article:

It will be recollected by some, that a Mr. Caswall, professing to be an Episcopal minister, came to this city some twelve or eighteen months ago. He had with him an old manuscript, professing to be ignorant of its contents, and came to Joseph Smith, as he said, for the purpose of having it translated. Mr. Smith had a little conversation with him and treated him with civility, but as the gentleman seemed very much afraid of his document, he [Joseph] declined having any thing to do with it.

This article has been previously mentioned, for the purpose of dismissing it with a pre-emptive jeer and a sneer. Of course when T&S says that Caswall "seemed very much afraid of his document," it was hardly asserting that he thought it might bite him; rather, it is describing him as being nervous about discussing it, and rather shy about putting it forward. And in fact, a thoughtful approach reveals that this is indeed "a credible version of what happened."

Note that, while Caswall claims that he "had laid aside my clerical apparel, and had assumed a dress in which there was little probability of my being recognized as a 'minister of the Gentiles'," the T&S writer clearly remembers him "professing to be an Episcopal minister." As Hugh Nibley so shrewdly observed, "the disguise is purely for the benefit of the reader."

Now let us consider Mr Caswall himself. He was clearly, and from his own account, a very timid sort of fellow. He was afraid to lend his Psalter to the Mormons; afraid, even, to spend a single night in Nauvoo. He reported that Joseph "is constantly sending out emissaries to do deeds of darkness and abomination throughout the land. Many here are afraid to speak out, because they well understand that their lives and property will be in danger." According to him, he felt fortunate that the Mormons had not drowned him in the Mississippi. So this timid, bookish fellow walks into Nauvoo all alone, meets the man he has come to deceive and expose, in that man's own house and surrounded by that man's friends and supporters; furthermore, he knows that he is doing something dodgy, and if anyone gets the Psalter away from him and shows it to a qualified scholar, the game will be up and the tables will be turned; instead of being the Christian hero who exposed the Mormon pretender, Caswall will be a laughing-stock.

No wonder he was nervous.

No wonder, in a moment of sheer funk, he blurted out that it was just a Greek Psalter.

No wonder Joseph realised how "afraid" he was and kindly let him off the hook by not putting him on the spot and grilling him about what he was really up to.

And no wonder Caswall spent the rest of his life bitterly wishing that he had kept his nerve and brazened it out. Surely, if he had, anything Joseph could have said would have proved him to be an ignoramus, or even a false prophet!

And so that is why, in the quiet of his parish in Wiltshire, he kept working over his story. That explains the Great Wagon Scene; the picture of the villain fleeing in sheer terror from the mere possibility of being exposed and/or punished, and not slowing down until he is out of sight, is an utterly conventional device in Victorian literature (Conan Doyle was fond of it). It also explains why every single Mormon to whom he ever showed his "wonderful book" immediately assumed it was "something supernatural," even more wonderful than the antiquities in the British Museum: because they are foreshadowing (another literary device) what he would make Joseph say. It also explains why Caswall keeps having all those religious debates which he wins so easily, against Mormon opponents who are nevertheless spellbound by his long, dull Anglican sermons. It also explains why, nine years after his visit to Nauvoo, he suddenly "remembers" that he was really there to test Joseph's "inspiration" rather than his scholarship; and along with that, he suddenly "remembers" new speeches to go along with this new approach.

But all the time he was doing that, he was perfectly safe. His Psalter was unavailable for examination; and if any Mormon dared to contradict his version of events, as Mr Graham has amply demonstrated, they would be set upon and denounced as liars! for their pains.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

And so that is why, in the quiet of his parish in Wiltshire, he kept working over his story. That explains the Great Wagon Scene; the picture of the villain fleeing in sheer terror from the mere possibility of being exposed and/or punished, and not slowing down until he is out of sight, is an utterly conventional device in Victorian literature (Conan Doyle was fond of it). It also explains why every single Mormon to whom he ever showed his "wonderful book" immediately assumed it was "something supernatural," even more wonderful than the antiquities in the British Museum: because they are foreshadowing (another literary device) what he would make Joseph say. It also explains why Caswall keeps having all those religious debates which he wins so easily, against Mormon opponents who are nevertheless spellbound by his long, dull Anglican sermons. It also explains why, nine years after his visit to Nauvoo, he suddenly "remembers" that he was really there to test Joseph's "inspiration" rather than his scholarship; and along with that, he suddenly "remembers" new speeches to go along with this new approach.

But all the time he was doing that, he was perfectly safe. His Psalter was unavailable for examination; and if any Mormon dared to contradict his version of events, as Mr Graham has amply demonstrated, they would be set upon and denounced as liars! for their pains.

Regards,

Pahoran

Perhaps he was doing a self impression? Projecting what happend to him, having to leave Nauvoo with his tail tucked between his legs, on what he wanted JS to actually have done.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Zakuska

[Pahoran]

Perhaps he was doing a self impression? Projecting what happend to him, having to leave Nauvoo with his tail tucked between his legs, on what he wanted JS to actually have done.

I've wondered about that myself. While we've got no evidence either way, it's clear from the way Caswall works his story over as time goes by that he's freely embellishing it. It's also clear from what he says about Joseph that he personally dislikes him, and wants his audience to share that dislike. In every version, regardless of how much he changes things, he tries to stick to the story that Joseph pronounced his Psalter to be a "dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics" and portray himself as the clear winner in every argument, but just about everything else is negotiable. And Joseph just gets worse from version to version.

Regards,

Pahoran