Games With Footnotes

[Xander]

Ever since Henry Caswall published his meeting with Joseph Smith, where he claims the Prophet mistook a Greek Psalter for a dictionary of hieroglyphics, the apologists have been in Defcon 2, trying to discredit his story. Failing to do, they've tried to point to other "inconsistencies" in his book regarding other stories, so they can then go back and say "ah ha, he lied about this, so he lied about the other thing too!" Lately much ado has been made of his reference to a Nauvoo ordinance that apparently didn't exist on the books. I simply pointed out that we do not know where he got this information, so he could very well have heard it from someone in Nauvoo and he assumed it was true. That wouldn't make him a "liar" it would only mean he accurately reported what he heard. I was then attacked for pointing this out. He was a critic, so willfully lying is the only acceptable conclusion some LDS folks are willing to make. But historians are not obligated to think this way.

Hugh Nibley, in his attempt to discredit Henry Caswall, makes a fallacious assumption by insisting Caswall got his knowledge of the so-called Nauvoo ordinance from John C. Bennett. The idea here is not only guilt by association, but also to point out that Caswall must have been lying about it because the Bennett reference post-dates Caswall's story. So, as the theory goes, since this was his "original" source, the only explanation here is that Caswall took something he heard at a later time and then used it to fabricate an "experience" during his time in Nauvoo. In short, he must have lied. This argument hangs on the assumption that Caswall didn't hear about this during his time in nauvoo, and that he intended the footnote in his book to mean the "authority" or "original source."

This assumption is weak for two reasons:

1) It is normal for authors to reference things that appear in publication so their readers can reference them. That is the whole point for providing footnotes! For example an apologetic article will naturally reference faithful LDS sources in the footnotes, even if the data first appeared in an anti-Mormon source. So what purpose would it serve to reference his original source, if it were, oh let's say a threat made by some unnamed Mormon during a verbal scuffle he had on the streets of Nauvoo? What good would that for anyone looking to verify the historicity of the ordinance? By citing the Louisville Journal, Caswall managed to establishes historical support for the existence of the ordinance. He never once said this was his "original" source, and Nibley of all people should know that is not how footnotes are necessarily used.

2) Why on earth would Caswall be trying to say Bennett was his primary source when the context clearly says he heard it while in Nauvoo? Certainly he knew - especially if he were lying about his experience - that the journal post-dated his experience. There is no reason to believe the reference cited in his book was anything more than historical support for the ordinance's existence. He never said this is where he originally heard of it. This is just one of the many self-serving assumptions Nibley makes in order to discredit him. Quite simply, there is nothing unusual about authors using publications to support hearsay evidence.

But it is funny how Nibley creates an imaginary interview to suit his apologetic. This is how his mock interview goes in his book:

Reporter 2: Very interesting. Where can I find out about that ordinance?

Caswall: In Mr. John C. Bennett's book.

Reporter 2: Is that where you found out about it?

Caswall: I quoted it as my authority.

Of course Nibley responds for Caswall in this way because it sets up the straw man. It is misleading because Caswall never said it was "his authority." He merely put it in a footnote for the convenience of future readers. The irony here is that Nibley, perhaps, more than any other author I know, arbitarily throws out footnotes that have little or zero relevance to the corresponding comments, and here he is being hypercritical of Caswall's footnote.

And so the puppet show continues:

Reporter 2: And where did Mr. Bennett get his authority?

Caswall: As you will see here, he quotes from the Louisville Journal for 3 August 1842

Nibley makes it sound like Bennett used the Louisville Journal as his source, when in fact the opposite is true. So what on earth is Nibley doing here? The letter Bennett wrote discussing this ordinance was published in the July 25th edition of the Louisville Journal. The August 3rd edition to which Caswall refers, goes into further detail about Nauvoo ordinances, but a copy of this has not yet been located. Hence, Nibley is in no position to dictate to us what Bennett's source must have been. We simply don't know.

Contrary to myth, I never asked for "charity" for Caswall. I simply expected people to operate from information that they actually know, as opposed to information they want to assume to be true. Establish the facts first, and then go from there. You don't begin with your conclusion and make up the facts as you go along. Avoiding this fallacy is not "charity" it is simply doing history in a professional way. This is not how historians are obligated to respond. It is how apologists are compelled to respond because their effort is agenda driven. The fact is this entire case against Caswall is built on a house of cards. An illusion devised by an imaginative and apologetic agenda to discredit a man who effectively proved Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents. That is why so many Mormon authors have tried to discredit this man using every tactic imaginable. Nibley relies on his ability to create puppet shows, to make his target say what he wants so he can then proceed to knock over one straw man after another, all the while inventing a supporting cast of skeptical reporters who are only skeptical of Caswall's claims. This is an embarrassment to the field of history.

The case against Caswall the "liar" hinges on a carefully orchestrated smear campaign that cannot stand up to scrutiny. Was he a zealous man who was given to hyperbole at times? Sure.That doesn't make him a liar. And to rely on John Taylor - who I have shown to be a proven liar even according to his own family - is really just another sign of how desperate the apologetic position has become. I'll start another thread later on discussing the John Taylor deception which took place in France. I'm curious as to how many people here would view his deception as anything less than intentional deception, and who is willing to discredit his grandson, a historian and author of the extensive biography, The Last Pioneer, John Taylor, a Mormon Prophet, as nothing more than a common anti-Mormon who must be lying.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Xander

[Pahoran]

Ever since Henry Caswall published his meeting with Joseph Smith, where he claims the Prophet mistook a Greek Psalter for a dictionary of hieroglyphics, the apologists have been in Defcon 2, trying to discredit his story.

And ever since his story was discredited -- which it is -- the haters have been bleating and crying foul that anyone would do to one of their beloved icons what they regularly try to do to Joseph Smith.

Failing to do, they've tried to point to other "inconsistencies" in his book regarding other stories, so they can then go back and say "ah ha, he lied about this, so he lied about the other thing too!" Lately much ado has been made of his reference to a Nauvoo ordinance that apparently didn't exist on the books. I simply pointed out that we do not know where he got this information, so he could very well have heard it from someone in Nauvoo and he assumed it was true. That wouldn't make him a "liar" it would only mean he accurately reported what he heard. I was then attacked for pointing this out. He was a critic, so willfully lying is the only acceptable conclusion some LDS folks are willing to make. But historians are not obligated to think this way.

Hugh Nibley, in his attempt to discredit Henry Caswall, makes a fallacious assumption by insisting Caswall got his knowledge of the so-called Nauvoo ordinance from John C. Bennett. The idea here is not only guilt by association, but also to point out that Caswall must have been lying about it because the Bennett reference post-dates Caswall's story. So, as the theory goes, since this was his "original" source, the only explanation here is that Caswall took something he heard at a later time and then used it to fabricate an "experience" during his time in Nauvoo. In short, he must have lied. This argument hangs on the assumption that Caswall didn't hear about this during his time in nauvoo, and that he intended the footnote in his book to mean the "authority" or "original source."

This assumption is weak for two reasons:

1) It is normal for authors to reference things that appear in publication so their readers can reference them. That is the whole point for providing footnotes! For example an apologetic article will naturally reference faithful LDS sources in the footnotes, even if the data first appeared in an anti-Mormon source. So what purpose would it serve to reference his original source, if it were, oh let's say a threat made by some unnamed Mormon during a verbal scuffle he had on the streets of Nauvoo? What good would that for anyone looking to verify the historicity of the ordinance? By citing the Louisville Journal, Caswall managed to establishes historical support for the existence of the ordinance. He never once said this was his "original" source, and Nibley of all people should know that is not how footnotes are necessarily used.

2) Why on earth would Caswall be trying to say Bennett was his primary source when the context clearly says he heard it while in Nauvoo? Certainly he knew - especially if he were lying about his experience - that the journal post-dated his experience. There is no reason to believe the reference cited in his book was anything more than historical support for the ordinance's existence. He never said this is where he originally heard of it. This is just one of the many self-serving assumptions Nibley makes in order to discredit him. Quite simply, there is nothing unusual about authors using publications to support hearsay evidence.

You are misrepresenting the argument, Kevin.

Caswall visited Nauvoo in April of 1842. Shortly after his visit, he returned to England and wrote his first account, namely the first edition of Three Days at Nauvoo, during the sea voyage. This edition was published in that same year. In that account, he does not mention the fictitious ordinance. At all.

In August of 1842, after Caswall returned to England and wrote his first account, Bennett's lurid exposé appears in various American tabloids.

Then, in 1843, Caswall produces a "revised and enlarged" second edition of his novel. For the first time, he suddenly "remembers" the fictitious Nauvoo ordinance that Mr Graham wants us to believe he heard all about on the streets of Nauvoo.

Except he didn't "remember" it at all; nor did he hear about it on the streets of Nauvoo when he was there in April. John C. Bennett fabricated it from whole cloth three months after Caswall left Nauvoo.

When Caswall cites Bennett as his source, he is (for once) telling the truth. Bennett was his source; the notion that he is merely appealing to Bennett as a corroborating witness is mere wishful thinking.

If any LDS defender were to use a similar argument in defence of Joseph Smith (or John Taylor, or any other accused Mormon) do we expect Mr Graham to extend the charitable forbearance he demands for Caswall?

You should live so long!

It would be an occasion for Mr Graham to dump a truckload of abuse and invective upon the head of the unfortunate who dared to make such an argument. The signature Kevin Graham epithets about "apologists" and "Defcon 2" and "proven liars" would fly as thick as hail.

The fact is that Henry Caswall is a proven liar. Kevin doesn't mind, because Caswall is lying for Kevin's side; he just doesn't want word to get out.

Nibley makes it sound like Bennett used the Louisville Journal as his source, when in fact the opposite is true. So what on earth is Nibley doing here? The letter Bennett wrote discussing this ordinance was published in the July 25th edition of the Louisville Journal. The August 3rd edition to which Caswall refers, goes into further detail about Nauvoo ordinances, but a copy of this has not yet been located. Hence, Nibley is in no position to dictate to us what Bennett's source must have been. We simply don't know.

Yes, Nibley was mistaken when he described the Louisville Journal as Bennett's source; the Journal was quoting Bennett, not the other way around. In the real world, Mormons make honest mistakes just like everyone else. However, his mistake is ultimately irrelevant, because Bennett doesn't need to have a "source" for a fabrication that is original to him.

Bennett was the mayor of Nauvoo in April of 1842. When he claimed such an ordinance existed, he was making that claim from his personal knowledge, not from any "source." Thus, since it did not exist, he was lying outright when he said it did.

And since Caswall claimed to have been personally aware of such an ordinance before Bennet fabricated it, he was clearly lying too.

Contrary to myth, I never asked for "charity" for Caswall. I simply expected people to operate from information that they actually know, as opposed to information they want to assume to be true. Establish the facts first, and then go from there. You don't begin with your conclusion and make up the facts as you go along. Avoiding this fallacy is not "charity" it is simply doing history in a professional way. This is not how historians are obligated to respond. It is how apologists are compelled to respond because their effort is agenda driven. The fact is this entire case against Caswall is built on a house of cards. An illusion devised by an imaginative and apologetic agenda to discredit a man who effectively proved Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents.

No, he did not.

As you reminded us elsewhere, an unsupported claim doesn't "prove" anything.

Especially one made by a -- what's the Graham phrase here? Oh yes: "proven liar."

Kevin, before you were expelled from the Caswall thread for personal abuse and insults, you passed up the opportunity to address a number of substantive points. Caswall's sudden and dramatic shift from the Psalter as a test of "scholarship" (1842-3) to "inspiration" (1851) went utterly unmarked by you. You also failed to address the fundamentally implausible account of how every single Mormon who ever clapped eyes on Caswall's pile of illegible parchment immediately declared it to be "something supernatural" and offered to buy it from him before Joseph had even heard of it. You chose to focus upon your spiteful personal attack upon John Taylor. Indeed, you show yourself to be a shameless hypocrite when you gnash your gums about wicked "apologists" trying to discredit Caswall, then turn around and pull out every low, dirty trick you can to try to discredit Elder Taylor.

And still his testimony stands unimpeached.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have noticed your two recent threads (very well researched to one side) and posted…to what end? Is it to convince yourself or others? I is to win converts; if so to what cause? I have learned at my age that the messenger is just an important as the message, if not more so. I seek no harm with these question; just wondering?

[Minos]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: More trash and bash

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff