The Quincy Account

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The Quincy Account

Post by Shulem »

Friends,

With regard to the $6,000 figure, help me understand something which I see as black or white. Isn’t there an equal chance that Quincy was given the wrong figure from someone in Joseph Smith’s party? Making the automatic assumption that Quincy was at fault doesn’t seem fair. He certainly could have been given the wrong figure from mother Smith or even Joseph Smith himself. It had been several years since the mummies were purchased and it could be that doubling the value was part of the discussion. So how does Bayesian factor that?

As a matter of speculation, I propose the idea that Smith was trying to royalize the mummies in order to increase their value for a possible resale. Perhaps even double the price of the original purchase. Certainly, the mummies would increase in value considerably if a potential buyer believed one of them was a king of Egypt. One might even think about purchasing them with the sole intention of reselling them for profit.

Could it be that Quincy was told one of the mummies was Necho for purposes of creating a more valuable product and spreading the word of that product? I’m just throwing that out there as speculation which doesn’t seem too farfetched.

Ryan?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The Quincy Account

Post by Shulem »

Ryan Larsen wrote:
Thu Mar 10, 2022 4:41 am
What I said is that it's not as reliable as we might have expected. That can be determined through Bayesian analysis.

The problem with your responses is that you try to trump new data by using arguments which would already be factored into your priors, coupled with unrealistically high expectations for a human being (Quincy).

I hope you will continue trying to come up with a response to my argument, and I appreciate your interest. I would suggest trying to steel man my argument, quantifying Bayesian priors and trying to objectively determine the significance of each piece of evidence I provide.

Best,

Ryan

Yes, I have more to say, for sure.

I hope you’ll forgive me for yelling at you with all capitals in a previous post. Please understand that particular concept is my signature piece as a Book of Abraham critic and I wanted to make sure you saw it and wouldn’t pass it up.

;)


PS. The color format at your website article is too hard on my eyes and I am unable to handle the glare.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The Quincy Account

Post by Shulem »

It’s very reasonable to think that Joseph Smith would have pointed at signature hieroglyphs on the Abrahamic papyrus because he claimed the roll was written by Abraham’s own hand. It makes perfect sense that Smith would have done exactly what Quincy said.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The Quincy Account

Post by Shulem »

Ryan’s proposal (if it can be called that) in questioning the accuracy of Quincy’s statement that Smith pointed out hieroglyphs on the papyrus which bore the signature of the patriarch Abraham is fatally flawed. It seems to be the main thrust of his argument. But the more I think about what Quincy wrote it makes perfect sense. Knowing everything I know about the Book of Abraham saga in Mormonism I can’t for the life of me think of a single reason why Smith wouldn’t have done just that! It makes perfect sense. I believe Josiah Quincy was telling the truth and accurately reported exactly what Joseph Smith said and did while demonstrating his knowledge of the papyrus and his prophetic ability as a translator to read the writing on the papyrus which was something nobody else could do.

So, regardless of whatever anomalies one might point out about the account given in Figures of the Past, the testimonial about the signature of Abraham is entirely believable and reasonable in every respect. There simply is nothing to justify a complaint or to question that specific point of the account. There is no reason to think that Quincy was making it up out of thin air or lying about it. That makes no sense to me. Knowing everything I know about Joseph Smith and his wild claims, it falls in line with his character and bombastic claims to translate Egyptian. Smith’s publication of the Facsimile No. 3 and its Explanations in the Times and Seasons supports the exact kind of thing we are discussing in Quincy’s account.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The Quincy Account

Post by Shulem »

Ryan Larsen wrote:
Wed Mar 09, 2022 2:53 pm
In further support of this view is the included statement, “This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed the first book of Genesis." Since this was May of 1844, Joseph had long since already translated both the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. But Quincy and his friend appear not to realize that the Book of Moses had in fact come from a translation of the Bible, not from translation of the papyri. So in print, it ended up in a narrative of the papyri - and this is perhaps the type of liberty which Quincy calls the “grace of expression” in the introductory excerpt to his book, cited above.

One can only wonder what or why Quincy would have reported the signature of “Moses” on the papyri. It really doesn’t make sense to me. It makes no sense for either Joseph Smith or Josiah Quincy to report that kind of thing. How could papyrus having gone through the hands of Abraham and his great grandson Joseph have also gone through the hands of Moses and Aaron to finally be sealed up in the tomb until discovered in the last days? Is that what Joseph Smith was claiming? It seems so.

It’s just another one of those crazy things that Mormonism is stuck with.

;)
Ryan Larsen
Sunbeam
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2022 7:06 pm

Re: The Quincy Account

Post by Ryan Larsen »

I added the following Bayesian aids to the OP:

Why would Joseph tell Quincy things which contradicted the consistent narrative he told others?

Especially in front of his mom? And in reference to things which townspeople could have easily contradicted if Quincy had spoken with them?

Would that not put Joseph’s narrative in jeopardy?

Are we to believe he did not know, or did not care that he was putting his narrative in jeopardy?

If Joseph did indeed say those things, it would make sense if he was joking around and jovial, in which case the statements should not reflect his actual claims about Abraham.

The fact is, the Quincy account contradicts Joseph’s usual narrative on a number of points.

If Quincy’s account is to be seen as evidence of anything, we must acknowledge that the evidence was tampered with. The conceptual chain of custody of the account was poorly kept, as Quincy himself conceded - i.e. his letters and journals were altered so as to “gain in grace of expression,” etc.

It would not be allowed as evidence in a court of law.

Moreover, Quincy admitted his letters and journals had been altered nearly 40 years after the events in question, before publication.

And, the person who altered them was someone who presumably had not been present during the encounter with Joseph Smith and would have had no personal knowledge of the events.

A couple questions now, to aid your Bayesian analysis regarding the reliability of the Quincy account:

Question 1: Would the Quincy account have been more reliable if it did not contradict the consistent narrative elements found in other eyewitness accounts?

Question 2: Would the Quincy account have been more reliable if it had not been altered?

Question Second Amendment: Would it have been more reliable if it had been altered only one year after being written, rather than almost 40 years after being written?

Question 2b: Would it have been more reliable if it had been altered by someone who had personal knowledge of the events, rather than someone with no personal knowledge of the events?
Ryan Larsen
Sunbeam
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2022 7:06 pm

Re: The Quincy Account

Post by Ryan Larsen »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Mar 10, 2022 2:17 pm
Friends,

With regard to the $6,000 figure, help me understand something which I see as black or white. Isn’t there an equal chance that Quincy was given the wrong figure from someone in Joseph Smith’s party? Making the automatic assumption that Quincy was at fault doesn’t seem fair. He certainly could have been given the wrong figure from mother Smith or even Joseph Smith himself. It had been several years since the mummies were purchased and it could be that doubling the value was part of the discussion. So how does Bayesian factor that?

As a matter of speculation, I propose the idea that Smith was trying to royalize the mummies in order to increase their value for a possible resale. Perhaps even double the price of the original purchase. Certainly, the mummies would increase in value considerably if a potential buyer believed one of them was a king of Egypt. One might even think about purchasing them with the sole intention of reselling them for profit.

Could it be that Quincy was told one of the mummies was Necho for purposes of creating a more valuable product and spreading the word of that product? I’m just throwing that out there as speculation which doesn’t seem too farfetched.

Ryan?
That seems like a clever idea. But then the handwriting of Abraham would fall into that same category, which would mean that, even if Joseph said it in a moment of temptation, it could not be counted on to represent his actual claims about the papyrus.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5037
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: The Quincy Account

Post by Marcus »

Ryan Larsen wrote:
Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:19 pm
...to aid your Bayesian analysis regarding the reliability of the Quincy account...
I would be interested in seeing your Bayesian analysis, could you post more details? I didn't see any probabilities, priors or otherwise, equations or any discussion of your bayesian analysis in the link in the OP.
Ryan Larsen
Sunbeam
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2022 7:06 pm

Re: The Quincy Account

Post by Ryan Larsen »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:40 pm
Ryan Larsen wrote:
Thu Mar 10, 2022 4:41 am
I don't want to make you feel bad, but you're confusing him with his dad. It's a perfectly understandable mistake, and I get them confused sometimes, too.

THANK YOU for the correction because that is an error on my part and one that I’ve fostered for a very long time. I’m so mad at myself for that! So, you’ve been really helpful in getting that set right. I owe you one!

Again, thank you. I stand corrected.

Father and son were much alike so it seems. Both were very much accomplished and intelligent. Quincy Jr. became mayor of Boston a few years after his visit to Nauvoo. For the record:

Josiah Quincy III

Josiah Quincy Jr.



I will however continue to defend young Quincy on the same principle that he was intelligent and probably was as organized as his father seeing they were very similar in their accomplishments. He was in fact the eyewitness to what was reported in Figures of the Past. I think it’s most unfair to discount this testimony as you have done in your critical analysis of finding a way to lesson the impact of what Quincy reported. I find that somewhat upsetting on your part. I’m sure you can understand that so I was quick to point that out.

Anyway, I apologize for not welcoming you to the board earlier. That was rather rude of me. I’ve been running a hundred miles an hour lately.
It’s not a problem. I know you were frustrated, and it’s okay to be frustrated.

I don’t know how often I’ll get on the board, but I hope it will be often enough to engage with you and become friends.

I want to make a point about your totally understandable error, and how it relates to the things Quincy said. Misunderstandings happen, and in history we can’t always identify them. But since they happen in everyday life on a regular basis, even to intelligent people like yourself, I think we need to allow for the possibility of misunderstandings in history.

Not that we can use the possibility as an excuse for everything, but when other facts seem off, it might raise the likelihood of a misunderstanding occurred between people long ago. For instance, let’s say Joseph Smith was excited to have Quincy visit, and in his exuberance he was joking around but Quincy didn’t catch on and didn’t interpret it as joking.

That’s just one possibility.

Anyway, I will take a look at the Shulem issue when I get home tonight, and let you know my thoughts.
Ryan Larsen
Sunbeam
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2022 7:06 pm

Re: The Quincy Account

Post by Ryan Larsen »

Marcus wrote:
Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:30 pm
Ryan Larsen wrote:
Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:19 pm
...to aid your Bayesian analysis regarding the reliability of the Quincy account...
I would be interested in seeing your Bayesian analysis, could you post more details? I didn't see any probabilities, priors or otherwise, equations or any discussion of your bayesian analysis in the link in the OP.
I don’t rely on it personally, so I’m more interested in the direction of Bayesian movement. Does that make sense?

I have my own intuitive framing of things, but I know BYP and others are into Bayesian modeling, and I’m interested in their ideas on it.
Post Reply