For ttribe re 1832 & 38 Anthon visit accounts

[_thews]

In short, most LDS apologists think that at first, Dr. Anthon proclaimed the characters to be "true characters" but then later changed his opinion when he found out the story behind them. In other words, Dr. Anthon was obviously a rabid anti-Mormon. (Nevermind that Mormonism wasn't even born in Feb. 1829).

Roger,

Have you (or someone else?) looked at the characters and found anything published that Joseph Smith could have used as a foundation for some of the characters? It would seem to me that Anthon would know the difference between something close to Greek, and Joseph Smith was fooled with the Greek Psalter, so I'm wondering if there's a published source of Egyptian that he used as a basic model when he wrote some characters down?

[_Joseph]

Just as seagulls eating crickets was no big deal at the time and later morphed into a Miracle, so it is with Joseph and the Professor Anthon story.

If no one could translate Egyptian at that time how could Anthon say it was correct or not? Add in the later story has so much more than the original one and you have problems.

Try telling the cops one story and later changing it or adding so much to it and maybe you will get the idea why many of us think this is baloney.

[_ttribe]

So is this dead in the water? Am I correct to assert that there is a glaring contradiction between Joseph's 1832 account of the Harris/Anthon visit and his 1838 account? Am I correct to conclude that in 1828 Smith's objective was to convince Harris that the Book of Mormon translation project was of God and therefore worthy of mortgaging the farm, whereas in 1838 his objective was to bolster his claim to being a legitimate translator of the Egyptian language?

Viewing the data from this point of view still renders a contradiction, but one that can be explained. In 1828 it was useful that Anthon could not translate the characters since that matched up well with Isaiah 29:11 and convinced Harris that he was fulfilling prophecy. In 1838 it was more useful to have a noted language authority endorsing the prophet's translation abilities. Hence, a non-existent 1828 translation materializes in 1838 along with Anthon's alleged stamp of approval.

Are we all agreed on that, then?

All the best.

My silence has more to do with the fact that I just plain haven't had time to deal with this.

[_Spider-to-the-Fly]

Just as seagulls eating crickets was no big deal at the time and later morphed into a Miracle, so it is with Joseph and the Professor Anthon story.

If no one could translate Egyptian at that time how could Anthon say it was correct or not? Add in the later story has so much more than the original one and you have problems.

Try telling the cops one story and later changing it or adding so much to it and maybe you will get the idea why many of us think this is baloney.

Mr. Joseph,

If only the cops would see things with their spiritual eyes and hear things with their spiritual ears, there would be no inconsistencies in telling different stories to the cops. The cops would accept what with just their physical senses and mental capabilities they conclude is 'baloney'.

Regards,

Spider.

[_MCB]

The cops would accept what with just their physical senses and mental capabilities they conclude is 'baloney'.

As in slanderous "snitches"?

[_Roger]

Thews:

Have you (or someone else?) looked at the characters and found anything published that Joseph Smith could have used as a foundation for some of the characters? It would seem to me that Anthon would know the difference between something close to Greek, and Joseph Smith was fooled with the Greek Psalter, so I'm wondering if there's a published source of Egyptian that he used as a basic model when he wrote some characters down?

I spent the last couple hours writing out a detailed response to this and then with one wrong mouse click it vanished into thin air. I hate it when I do that.

I don't have time to try to recreate everything, but here is a summary...

Check out this site:

http://kolobiv.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html

...and this one:

http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/2000s/2001RBSt.htm


The first link is a well written summary of the whole Anthon affair by someone who appears to be a True Believing Mormon. In my opinion she accurately presents what is known and, interestingly enough, comes to a similar conclusion to my own--that there is indeed a contradiction here between the two accounts which affects how Isaiah 29 is allegedly fulfilled. You'll have to scroll down to begin reading the blog posts in order.

Of particular interest is this:

Martin Harris told the story of his visit to Charles Anthon in Palmyra immediately after he returned from New York City. The Reverend T. A. Clark in Palmyra wrote that "After his return he came to see me again, and told me that, among others, he had consulted Prof. Anthon, who thought the characters in which the book was written very remarkable, but he could not decide what language they belonged to." [1] In August of 1829 the first newspaper report of Harris' story appeared as follows: "So blindly enthusiastic was Harris that he took some of the characters interpreted by Smith and went in search of someone, besides the interpreter, who was learned enough to English them; but all of whom he applied (among the number was Professor Mitchell of New York) happened not to be possessed of sufficient knowledge to give satisfaction." [2] About a week later the Rochester Gem of September 5, 1829 reported the incident as follows: "Harris states that he went in search of someone to interpret the hieroglyphics, but found no one was intended to perform that all-important task but Smith himself." [3]

...and here are her references:

[1] John A. Clark, Gleanings by the Way (Philadelphia, 1842), pp. 222, 229.

[2] The account appeared in the Palmyra Freeman, August 1829, but is known only through a quotation reprinted in the Rochester Advertiser and Telegraph of August 31, 1829.

[3] The above two newspaper articles are cited in Kirkham, A New Witness, Vol. 1, p. 151.

The second link is a very intriguing analysis by Richard Stout who--I think definitively--shows a correlation between the characters on the AT and Tironian notes. You have to read the whole thing to follow this, but here is what Stout eventually concludes:

Given the circumstances, I think it highly likely the marginalia in Paff's Bible and the "signs and symbols" which were "so exactly alike" in the Detroit Manuscript were shorthand notes from a system invented some time before the 19th century. Because so many characters from the "Anthon transcript" resemble Tironian notes and early modern shorthand characters, I believe it fair to conclude -- given the connections already enumerated in this paper between the "curious" manuscript's owner Abraham Edwards, Stephan Mack, Joseph Smith, and Samuel L. Mitchill -- that the "Anthon transcript" is, very likely, primarily a random collection of early modern shorthand characters transcribed from the Detroit Manuscript. And, if Anthon was correct in his conclusion that Dr. Mitchill suspected "some trick" when Harris showed him the characters, then their similarity with the Irish manuscript's "signs and symbols" would certainly explain Mitchill's suspicion.

In any event, what is clear to me at this point is that:

1. there was no Smith-provided translation in 1828
2. even if there would have been, given the state of Egyptian decipherment in 1828 (not to mention reformed Egyptian!) Anthon could not and would not have pronounced such a translation the best he'd ever seen
3. Anthon's inability to decipher the characters is what was taken as fulfillment of Isaiah 29 in 1828
4. there is no mention of Anthon claiming he could not read a "sealed book" in 1828. That claim enters the mix in 1838.
5. Smith had differing objectives in 1828 and 1838 and is adapting the story to meet those differing objectives which results in a (revealing) contradiction.

All the best.