Difference between revisions of "Joseph Smith/Other translation claims"

Third party translation claims

Summary: Joseph Smith is claimed by others to have translated certain documents for which an actual translation was never produced. Joseph Smith is claimed to have not been given the right to have any other prophetic gift beyond translating the Book of Mormon.

Jump to details:

• Question: Did Joseph Smith misidentify a Greek "psalter" as a containing "reformed Egyptian" hieroglyphics?
• Question: Was Joseph Smith’s only mission to bring forth the Book of Mormon?

Question: Did Joseph Smith misidentify a Greek "psalter" as a containing "reformed Egyptian" hieroglyphics?

There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his anti-Mormon work

It was claimed by Henry Caswall that an ancient text of Greek psalms (a "psalter") was misidentified by Joseph Smith as a containing "reformed Egyptian" hieroglyphics.

There is no other evidence of Caswall's claim save his anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time. ^[1] Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied.

Those who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty.

An English clergyman from Missouri named Henry Caswall visited Nauvoo in 1842 and claimed that Joseph identifed a Greek psalter as a "Dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics"

On 19 April 1842, an English clergyman from Missouri named Henry Caswall visited Nauvoo, and would later claim that he had shown Joseph Smith a Greek psalter, which the Prophet claimed to translate:

He [Joseph Smith] has a downcast look, and possesses none of that open and straightforward expression which generally characterizes an honest man. 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." ^[2]

John Taylor: "Concerning Mr. Caswall, I was at Nauvoo during the time of his visit. He came for the purpose of looking for evil"

Of this claim, John Taylor would later say:

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. ^[3]

An earlier, more detailed account from Caswall

That Caswall is not being entirely honest is demonstrated by another version of the same tale which he published the year earlier:

[p. 5] I 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." 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….

[p. 35] On entering the house, chairs were provided for the prophet and myself, while the curious and gaping crowd remained standing. I handed the book to the prophet, and begged him to explain its contents. He asked me if I had any idea of its meaning. I replied, that I believed it to be a Greek Psalter; but that I should like to hear his opinion. "No," he said; "it ain't Greek at all; except, perhaps, a few words. What ain't Greek, is Egyptian ; and what ain't Egyptian, is Greek. This book is very valuable. It is a dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics." Pointing to the capital letters at the commencement of each verse, he said : "Them figures is Egyptian hieroglyphics; and them which follows, is [p. 36] the interpretation of the hieroglyphics, written in the reformed Egyptian. Them characters is like the letters that was engraved on the golden plates." Upon this, the Mormons around began to congratulate me on the information I was receiving. "There," they said ; "we told you so we told you that our prophet would give you satisfaction. None but our prophet can explain these mysteries." The prophet now turned to me, and said, "this book ain't of no use to you, you don't understand it." "Oh yes," I replied; "it is of some use; for if I were in want of money, I could sell it, and obtain, perhaps, enough to live on for a whole year." "But what will you take for it?" said the prophet and his elders. "My price," I replied, "is higher than you would be willing to give." "What price is that?" they eagerly demanded. I replied, "I will not tell you what price I would take; but if you were to offer me this moment nine hundred dollars in gold for it, you should not have it." They then repeated their request that I should lend it to them until the prophet should have time to translate it, and promised me the most ample security; but I declined all their proposals. ^[4]

The Times and Seasons noted somewhat sardonically that Caswall had returned home and been 'rewarded' with status in his own denomination because of his attacks on the Church

The newspaper gave a version of events which seems to accord much better with the facts than Caswall's claim that Joseph was anxious to translate the psalter but Caswall refused to sell or lend it:

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. ^[5]

There are suspicious differences between Caswall's accounts

In his first version, Caswall claims that he told Joseph and the Mormons what the book was–a copy of the Psalms in Greek. Despite this warning, the bumbling Joseph that Caswall wishes us to see presses blindly on, utterly confident in his ability. The prophet and Mormons are also extraordinarily anxious to purchase the Psalter or borrow it with "the most ample security," but Caswall will not do so. Extraordinary! He has come to Nauvoo, he tells us, with the firm intent of exposing Joseph Smith as a charlatan. In front of a mass of witnesses, Joseph makes claims about the contents of a book that Caswall knows to be Greek, and the prophet offers to translate the document. Caswall, however, refuses to let him continue, refuses to loan it, and tries to discourage the Mormons from even thinking about buying it. Why? If Joseph committed himself publicly, in print, on the document's contents, Caswall would have iron-clad proof that Joseph could not translate.

Joseph walked right into Caswall's trap, and Caswall then goes to great length to spring the prophet from it? His claim does not stand up.

Caswall also claimed at first to have disguised his identity as a minister (the better to fool Joseph and the Mormons) but the Times and Seasons noted that Caswall had claimed to be an Episcopal minister. Caswall's second account likewise says nothing about him hiding his identity.

It is not surprising, then, that critics often cite the later, less-detailed version(s) of Caswall's tale, which omit many of the absurdities in Caswall's claim. Critics make his charge look plausible, when the earliest document demonstrates that it is not, and that Caswall (as John Taylor claimed) was not above hiding or altering the facts to suit his polemical purpose.

Joseph studied Greek and would have recognized Greek letters

Joseph Smith's journal reveals that Joseph actually studied a bit of Greek well before Caldwell's visit.

On 20 November 1835, Oliver Cowdery returned from New York and brought Joseph a Hebrew and Greek lexicon. ^[6] On 23 December 1835, Joseph wrote that he was "at home studying the greek Language..." ^[7]

Joseph was probably not a great scholar of Greek. But, Caldwell's claim that he was able to deceive Joseph with a Greek psalter seems pretty implausible when we realize that Joseph had studied a book on Greek. Joseph would not even need to be able to read the psalter to recognize Greek letters—learning such letters is the first task of any Greek student.

This, coupled with the other absurdities in Caswall's tale, and his efforts to make Joseph appear as a simple ignorant yokel make his tale even more unlikely.

Question: Was Joseph Smith’s only mission to bring forth the Book of Mormon?

Introduction to Question

In The Book of Commandments, which contains many of the revelations now canonized today as the Doctrine and Covenants, we read the following in the forth chapter and second verse:

4:2 And now, behold this shall you say unto him:--I the Lord am God, and I have given these things unto my servant Joseph, and I have commanded him that he should stand as a witness of these things, nevertheless I have caused him that he should enter into a covenant with me, that he should not show them except I command him and he has no power over them except I grant it unto him; and he has a gift to translate the book and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.

This revelation was given in March 1829. That last phrase—“for I will grant him no other gift”—has puzzled certain interpreters. Did this mean that Joseph Smith was only meant to translate the Book of Mormon as his prophetic gift? Did Joseph Smith lose the ability to receive revelation after finishing the translation the Book of Mormon? Did Joseph Smith perhaps fabricate his encounters with Peter, James, and John in order to bolster his credibility and continue his religious exploits?

Later on when this revelation was incorporated into the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the revelation was edited. All of the above blue highlights are changed from the third person to the second person as if the Lord was speaking to Joseph Smith directly and not Oliver Cowdery. There are other edits made to the revelation. The revelation is quoted below with the newer edits (beyond the shift from third to second person) highlighted in red:

5:2 And now, behold, this shall you say unto him--he who spake unto you, said unto you: I, the Lord, am God, and I have given these things unto you, my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and have commanded you that you should stand as a witness of these things;
5:3 And I have caused you that you should enter into a covenant with me, that you should not show them except to those persons to whom I commanded you; and you have no power over them except I grant it unto you.
5:4 And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.

Certain critics claim that Joseph Smith may have revised the revelation in order to continue his imagined prophetic career and alleged religious exploits.

See also: Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes and Question: Does Doctrine and Covenants 5 stipulate that there be only three witnesses to the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated?

This article will examine these questions as they have arisen.

Response to Question

The Original Revelation Makes No Mention of How Long Joseph Smith is to Pretend to No Other Gift

The immediate point is that the original revelation makes no mention of how long Joseph is to pretend to no other gift. The critics are assuming that the revelation is saying something when it might not be saying that thing at all. Does “pretend to no other gift” mean “pretend to no other gift at all”? Or just “pretend to no other gift for now”? Joseph seems to have clarified that meaning for us with further experience and revelation. Part of that revelation is 2 Nephi 3:8. 2 Nephi 3 contains a prophecy of Joseph Jr. becoming a "choice seer" that brings forth the Book of Mormon in the last days. The prophecy is given to Joseph of Egypt. Echoing the language of the Book of Commandments, God tells Joseph of Egypt, "And I will give unto him a commandment, that he shall do none other work, save the work which I shall command him." Here, the words of the Lord to Joseph of Egypt clarify the words of the Lord to Joseph. Joseph is not being prohibited from having any other gift, but only from pretending to a gift that the Lord hasn't given him. The Lord still intended to give Joseph Smith other writings to translate revelations to dictate.

All categorical statements are context-dependent. We can walk into a room and exclaim “Everything’s dirty!” That doesnt literally mean that everything in the universe and in existence is dirty. That doesn’t even mean that literally everything in that particular room is dirty. It means that there is enough in the room that is dirty that it provokes us to exclaiming "everything is dirty". The same principle applies here. Yes, the language is categorical; but we must take more into account in order to interpret that categorical language correctly. In this case, that includes further revelation and experience given to Joseph Smith.

The ‘gift to translate this book’ can be language to refer to the gift to translate broadly

The next part of this revelation that we need to deal with is the ‘gift to translate this book’ part. The language, if taken in a strict, textualist, literal sense, does refer to the gift of translating the Book of Mormon specifically. But, we can interpret this language more broadly to just refer to the gift to translate ancient texts generally. Indeed, that will be the necessary position for us to take as orthodox Latter-day Saints since Joseph Smith was granted the opportunity to translate a long lost papyri about John the Baptist—the translation of which is contained in section 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants. That section of the Doctrine and Covenants was received in April 1829 during the translation of the Book of Mormon which took place from late April 1829–mid-June 1829.^[8]

So Joseph Smith had the gift to translate the Book of Mormon because he had the broader gift given to him by God to translate ancient texts that are vital to the exaltation and salvation of God’s children.

The Coming of Elijah and the Translation of the Rest of the Book of Mormon

Two more reasons that we can tag onto this response to convince people that the revelation may be interpreted wrong are the following.

1. The Lord has already promised, prior to the translation of the Book of Mormon, other gifts that were promised by the Lord to his children in the latter days. This includes the coming of Elijah prophesied by Malachi and given by the Lord Jesus Christ to the Nephites in 3 Nephi 25. Why shouldn't we believe that the Lord would effectuate that coming of Elijah through Joseph Smith who he entrusted to reveal the most significant ancient record to?
2. The Book of Mormon also declares that the Book of Mormon must have its sealed portion translated at some point. According to the Book of Mormon, the sealed portion of the gold plates "contains the complete record of the vision of the brother of Jared ( see Ether 4:4–5; [ 5:1 ]). This vision included 'all things from the foundation of the world unto the end thereof' (2 Nephi 27:10–11; see also Ether 3:25). So basically the Lord revealed to the brother of Jared the history of mankind, and the sealed portion of the plates was Moroni's translated copy of it."^[9] The Lord declared that the words of the sealed portion would not be revealed "until the day that they [the Gentiles] shall repent of their iniquity, and become clean before the Lord. And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me...that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw" (Ether 4:6–7). It may be for this reason that Bruce R. McConkie explained that the sealed portion of the gold plates will be translated during the Millennium.^[10] The Book of Mormon already establishes as well that the ability to translate must come through a seer and seership (encompassing), in the Book of Mormon, is passed linearly.^[11] Surely Joseph Smith would have had to establish some sort of prophetic succession so that another seer, at the time of the "repentance of the Gentiles" referenced in Ether 4:6–7, could translate the sealed portion. Fortunately, we have just such succession criteria given via revelation to Joseph Smith.

Main article: Question: What are the standards for prophetic succession in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Did Joseph Smith receive other gifts prior to completing the Book of Mormon translation?

So we want the revelation to mean that God would not provide another gift besides translating the Book of Mormon until he completed the Book of Mormon. One might ask: Did Joseph Smith receive other gifts from God prior completing the translation of the Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon translation was done from late April–mid-June 1829. Doctrine & Covenants 5 was received in March 1829 and was the only revelation received that month. Joseph Smith received 12 revelations that are recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants between April–June 1829. These include Doctrine & Covenants 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.^[12] The uses of “gift” or “gifts” in those 12 sections of the Doctrine and Covenants are as follows:

• Doctrine & Covenants 6:10
• Doctrine & Covenants 6:10
• Doctrine & Covenants 6:11
• Doctrine & Covenants 6:12
• Doctrine & Covenants 6:13
• Doctrine & Covenants 6:13
• Doctrine & Covenants 6:13
• Doctrine & Covenants 6:25
• Doctrine & Covenants 6:27
• Doctrine & Covenants 6:28
• Doctrine & Covenants 8:4
• Doctrine & Covenants 8:5
• Doctrine & Covenants 8:6
• Doctrine & Covenants 8:7
• Doctrine & Covenants 8:8
• Doctrine & Covenants 11:10
• Doctrine & Covenants 11:10
• Doctrine & Covenants 14:7
• Doctrine & Covenants 14:7
• Doctrine & Covenants 17:7
• Doctrine & Covenants 18:32

These uses of “gift” in the revelations refer to:

• Joseph Smith’s gift of translation
• Salvation
• Oliver Cowdery being given the gift of translation
• Oliver Cowdery being given the gift of revelation/working with the sprout.

See also: Doctrine and Covenants/Oliver Cowdery and the "rod of nature"

• The gift given to Hyrum Smith to bring souls unto Christ (most likely this is the "gift" mentioned).
• The gift given to the Three Witnesses to see the gold plates like Joseph Smith had
• Spiritual gifts given to those that are ordained to preach the Gospel.^[13]

Thus, at least if following the wording of the revelations in the Doctrine & Covenants as canonized today (and the earliest manuscripts/copies of those revelations extant today), there is no other gift that Joseph Smith received prior to finishing the translation of the Book of Mormon. Of course, Joseph Smith had a gift of receiving other revelations during the translation of the Book of Mormon, but that is not another gift on top of being able to translate ancient documents.

Our critics still might not be satisfied though. They might argue that the reception of the priesthood by Oliver and Joseph might constitute a “gift” from God. Thus even if the revelations don’t refer to the priesthood as a gift, it might be argued that it was nevertheless a gift that Joseph and Oliver received. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery stated that the reception of the Aaronic priesthood happened on May 15, 1829.^[14] It is uncertain exactly when the Melchizedek priesthood was received but a lot of evidence can be marshalled to argue that it was received in late May 1829.

We might be tempted to reply that the priesthood is more of a privilege rather than a gift—the former being something that is given because it is earned and taken away if the conditions for receiving it are not met and the latter being something freely given without compensation. This may be too problematic of an approach though because the gift of translation was sometimes treated in the way that we talk about privileges. Joseph Smith lost his gift to translate after not keeping God’s commandments. Oliver Cowdery’s gift to translate was taken away from him and the Lord calls this “gift” of translation a “privilege” in Doctrine & Covenants 9:5. Perhaps someone else will find a way to make that approach work but it doesn’t seem to work for the author of this article.

The better approach would be to reply something along these lines: Joseph Smith was given the gift to translate ancient texts broadly with Book of Commandments 4/Doctrine & Covenants 5. He was given this gift and told that he would not receive another gift until the translation was complete. This revelation was likely given because the Lord did not want Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to delay completion of the translation. He wanted them to hurry as fast as they could to get it done. Seeing, though, that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were completing the translation so fast, God decided that they were ready for the next gift of the priesthood so that they could have the power and keys necessary to organize the Church and baptize people into it. Remember, the translation of the Book of Mormon took place between late April–mid-June 1829. Joseph Smith and Oliver had nearly completed the Book of Mormon translation by mid-to-late May 1829 when they received the priesthood.^[15]

Conclusion

Others may come up with different approaches for answering this criticism. This is just the one that seemed to make the most intuitive sense to the author. Hopefully it will provide everyone interested in the criticism all the necessary documents to make an informed judgement about it. It’s clear that no matter how one chooses to deal with this criticism, that it does not have to prove anything fatal to orthodox Latter-day Saints’ belief in the integrity and inspiration of their founding prophet.

Notes

1. ↑ Craig L. Foster, "Henry Caswall: Anti-Mormon Extraordinaire," Brigham Young University Studies 35 no. 4 (1995-96), 144–159.
2. ↑ Henry Caswall, The Prophet of the Nineteenth Century, or, the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Mormons, or Latter-Day Saints : To Which Is Appended an Analysis of the Book of Mormon (London: Printed for J. G. F. & J. Rivington, 1843), 223. off-site
3. ↑ [John Taylor,] "Three Nights: A Public Discussion between the Revds. C. W. Cleeve, James Robertson, and Philip Cater, and Elder John Taylor of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at Boulogne-Sur-Mer, France" (Liverpool: John Taylor, 1850), 5. off-site
4. ↑ Rev. Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons: Or, Three Days at Nauvoo in 1842 (London: Rivington, 1842), 5, 35–36.
5. ↑ Unsigned author, "Reward of Merit," Times and Seasons 4 no. 23 (15 October 1843), 364. off-site GospeLink
6. ↑ Dean Jessee, Ron Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (editors), The Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, Vol. 1: 1832–1839 (Church Historian's Press, 2008), 107. ISBN 1570088497.
7. ↑ Dean Jessee, Ron Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (editors), The Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, Vol. 1: 1832–1839 (Church Historian's Press, 2008), 135. ISBN 1570088497.
8. ↑ John W. Welch, “Timing the Translation of the Book of Mormon: ‘Days (and Hours) Never to Be Forgotten’,” BYU Studies 57, no. 4 (2018): 16–30.
9. ↑ "What is the 'sealed portion' of the Book of Mormon, and will we ever know what’s in it?" New Era 40 (October 2011): 31.
10. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, "The Bible, a Sealed Book," Supplement, A Symposium on the New Testament, 1984; in Teaching Seminary: Preservice Readings [2004]).
11. ↑ Susan Staker, "Secret Things, Hidden Things: The Seer Story in the Imaginative Economy of Joseph Smith," in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 235–74. The general tenor of the volume cited is anti-Mormon in nature with this essay being an exception. Reader discretion is advised.
12. ↑ According to Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the revelation regarding plural marriage during their translation of the Book of Mormon. If this revelation is not Doctrine & Covenants 132, then this would be the only uncanonized revelation received during the period of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Neither Doctrine & Covenants 132 nor the revelation Brigham Young recounts include use of the word “gift”.
13. ↑ The earliest manuscripts/copies of the revelations do not include other uses of gift than these.
14. ↑ Oliver Cowdery letter to William W. Phelps, Sept. 7, 1834, in Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1, no. 1 (Oct. 1834), 15; Joseph Smith, “History, 1838–1856, Volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 17–18, josephsmithpapers.org.
15. ↑ Some may think that this has implications for God’s foreknowledge—necessitating that God not know the exhaustive future. But this is not the case. God could have known exactly how Joseph’s and Oliver’s human psychology would respond to different commands and given them the revelation as recorded in BoC 4/D&C 5 to motivate them toward the end of completing the Book of Mormon translation. He could have known all along that the rapid completion of the translation would only be motivated by this type of revelation. This entire unfolding of events works for those that hold to open theism, middle knowledge, and even simple foreknowledge.