NOM

How do apologists reconcile Anton's denial of the claim he certified the characters as being valid Egyptian?

moksha wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 10:01 pm How do apologists reconcile Anton's denial of the claim he certified the characters as being valid Egyptian?

FAIR says, "Anthon clearly had no desire to have his name associated with "Mormonism," and so he has clear motives to alter the story after the fact."

ETA: I wonder if the FAIR author paused to consider that Joseph and Martin also had motives.

asa wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 12:02 am Skepticism is understandable but any narrative needs to fit the facts . Yours doesn't

Asa, I think you are arguing a different part of the narrative than I am. Perhaps a little review of the story that JOSEPH WROTE will unburden you.

First Joseph tells us that he had copied a number of the characters and that with the aid of the Urim and Thummim had made a "TRANSLATION" of the "CHARACTERS". (That means he wrote down what the characters said...)

Joseph then tells us...Martin " went to the City of New York and presented the Characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor <Charles> Anthon."

Furthermore, Joseph states that Anthon not only identified the characters but also verified the Translation as being the most correct he had ever seen.

As I recall, none of the Anthon accounts mention seeing a translation. Only that he saw the characters.

So ask yourself, "What was it that Joseph REALLY needed? Anyone with access to a book could come up with characters. What he really needed was certification that he was a translator of ancient scripture.

So, not doubting or disparaging ANY of the credentials of the two or three scholars, my question becomes two fold.

With the EXTREMELY limited knowledge available of interpreting Egyptian how likely is it that any of them could have verified a translation, especially when NONE OF THEM mention seeing a translation?

Secondly, how likely is it that Joseph (in light of Martin not being around ten years after the fact) would have fudged the story to give himself credibility as a verified translator? With Martin gone who could contradict him?

The later (between the lines) addition of the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy is the icing on the cake and looks even more incriminating.

Hope this helps you see where I'm coming from here. I'm more than happy to accept additional facts that may change how we view this part of the history.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2017 12:02 pm

moksha wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 10:01 pm How do apologists reconcile Anton's denial of the claim he certified the characters as being valid Egyptian?

FAIR says, "Anthon clearly had no desire to have his name associated with "Mormonism," and so he has clear motives to alter the story after the fact."

ETA: I wonder if the FAIR author paused to consider that Joseph and Martin also had motives.

What does FAIR have to say about all other Egyptologists since that time, who have looked at these characters, not finding them to be genuine Egyptian?

Palerider wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2017 12:36 pm

asa wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 12:02 am Skepticism is understandable but any narrative needs to fit the facts . Yours doesn't

Asa, I think you are arguing a different part of the narrative than I am. Perhaps a little review of the story that JOSEPH WROTE will unburden you.

First Joseph tells us that he had copied a number of the characters and that with the aid of the Urim and Thummim had made a "TRANSLATION" of the "CHARACTERS". (That means he wrote down what the characters said...)

Joseph then tells us...Martin " went to the City of New York and presented the Characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor <Charles> Anthon."

Furthermore, Joseph states that Anthon not only identified the characters but also verified the Translation as being the most correct he had ever seen.

As I recall, none of the Anthon accounts mention seeing a translation. Only that he saw the characters.

So ask yourself, "What was it that Joseph REALLY needed? Anyone with access to a book could come up with characters. What he really needed was certification that he was a translator of ancient scripture.

So, not doubting or disparaging ANY of the credentials of the two or three scholars, my question becomes two fold.

With the EXTREMELY limited knowledge available of interpreting Egyptian how likely is it that any of them could have verified a translation, especially when NONE OF THEM mention seeing a translation?

Secondly, how likely is it that Joseph (in light of Martin not being around ten years after the fact) would have fudged the story to give himself credibility as a verified translator? With Martin gone who could contradict him?

The later (between the lines) addition of the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy is the icing on the cake and looks even more incriminating.

Hope this helps you see where I'm coming from here. I'm more than happy to accept additional facts that may change how we view this part of the history.

I do not dispute your presentation of the facts. Joseph and Marin say there was a translation accompanying the characters and that Anthon affirmed the translation in writing. Anton says nothing about a translation but does eventually concede he issued a written opinion. The 2 points of conflict are there a translation and what did Anton say in his written report ? I don't know if there was a translation or not but if I were Martin and were going to spent time and money investigating someone's ability to trans late ancient documents I would want a sample of his translation efforts to show to the experts .It is also undisputed that having received the written report Harri returned and offered Joseph his unqualified support. I have spent my professional career weighting evidence and the credibility of witnesses particularly when witness statements are at variance to each other. On the one hand with have Anthon who varies his statement about important details ( incidentally bringing it more in line with the Harris statement ) and has a tremendous amount to lose if he is seen as offering any support to a disreputable cult ( it didn't exist at the time of the meeting so there was no foreseeable potential injury to reputation at the time , it was only later that he saw that he may be made a laughing stock and thus had motivation to change his story.) We have Harris initially a skeptic who upon receiving the Anthon report returns and offers Joseph his unqualified support and is steadfast in that support even though it costs him his marriage and his farm. Now reasonable men may disagree but if this wasn't about a religion you think is a hoax I suspect you might agree that the Harris account most fully explains the subsequent actions of the parties and thus is the more credible. However since you think the whole thing is a hoax I appreciate that anything that would cause cognative dissonance is to be avoided. None the less reasonable men of good will can disagree.

This is a fascinating topic with so many little twists and turns. You make an excellent point, Asa, that whatever happened in New York did not dissuade Martin from coming through with the funding.

Unfortunately we don't have Martin's account of the meeting, only Joseph's later retelling when Martin wasn't around to fill in the gaps. The only first hand accounts we have are Anthon's, which are dated 1843 and 1841, both of which agree with Joseph Smith's 1838 retelling that the paper contained a random mixture of characters from various ancient languages. This is what I find most disconcerting. This seems like one of those things (what do New Testament scholars call it?) that rings of truth because it is an embarrassment that does not fit expectations. Further, at the time Joseph dictated the history he was unaware that some of the languages he was claiming were copied from the gold plates had not been invented in Lehi's time. Additionally, the supposedly fulfilled prophesy that was written between the lines sometime after 1838 is based on a verse that says that the learned man would not be able to read the book (2 Nephi 27:18). ETA: I realized after writing this that the "sealed book" comment still works with the common narrative that Anthon could only not read the 2/3 portion that was said to be sealed, so I will bust my own chops on this one

The main thrust of both of Anthon's account was that he considered whatever was written on that transcript to be an obvious fraud, so either he was lying about that or Martin chose a confirmation bias approach and put more stock in the presence of real ancient characters than he did the fraud warning. Anthon was certainly not alone in warning Martin that he was being duped. He obviously put little stock in his wife's concerns about the matter.

asa wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 12:23 am
Joseph and Marin say there was a translation accompanying the characters and that Anthon affirmed the translation in writing.

And here I think is where we see differently. You say, "Joseph AND Martin say..."

Where does Martin say this? Maybe I haven't researched this enough but I'm only seeing Joseph's account of what he says Martin told him. So here we are forced to take Joseph's word for what happened between Martin and Anthon. And it is well known that Joseph is willing to lie in order to further his own interests. Take the polygamy question for example. When asked if he was practicing plural marriage did he tell the truth or not? Obviously he didn't. He was happy to deceive in order to further his own aims and to avoid trouble.

So if we're going to be looking at the credibility of witnesses, as you say...........shouldn't we start with Joseph?

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 9:38 am This is a fascinating topic with so many little twists and turns. You make an excellent point, Asa, that whatever happened in New York did not dissuade Martin from coming through with the funding.

But as you have pointed out earlier and I have read as well, Martin was very reticent to sell his land when it came right down to it. I think he had a subconscious hope that the BoM sales would at least cover the debt and when they turned out to be abysmal, he had to be brow beaten into giving up his property which subsequently cost him his marriage. To imagine that selling his farm happily to pay the debt already incurred for the printing is stretching the narrative much beyond credibility.

Im sure as a teenager I heard the story and the wee small voice said to me: how can Anton verify the translation of a language that no one knows (reformed Egyptian), he might be able to say 'yes, they look Egyptian'ish' but he could not comment on the interpretation being correct. However, that thought could not comfortably co-exist with the church is true paradigm so it was quickly suppressed.

And to throw another 90 degree turn into the story, we must realize that the "Anthon Transcript" that we're all familiar with is either not the same one that Anthon saw, or is only a small portion of it. It lacks the vertical columns, Mexican calendar, stars, moons and green clovers described by Anthon. Dan Vogel's analysis of it suggests that it might be a second-hand copy of the columns described by Anthon, but who knows?

All we know is that the church was sufficiently convinced by it to cover a printing of the Book of Mormon with it:

If you have one of these, by the way, hang onto it. They're going for $50-$60 now on Ebay. Back in the 70s we were tossing them out like clown candy at a parade.

moksha wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 10:01 pm How do apologists reconcile Anton's denial of the claim he certified the characters as being valid Egyptian?

I can't think of any direct statements about this, but I'm sure there must be some out there.
Here's what the FAIR website says about it. They leave it pretty vague except to infer that Anthon really did validate the translation and later lied about it to secure his place in the Great and Spacious Building:

Anthon denied that he had ever validated either the characters or Joseph's translation, though his two written accounts contradict each other on key points. For example:

- in his first letter, Anthon refuses to give Harris a written opinion

- in his second letter, Anthon claims that he wrote his opinion "without any hesitation" because he wished to expose what he was certain was a fraud.

A clue as to what Anthon said may be found in Martin Harris' reaction. Martin committed himself to financing the translation of the Book of Mormon.