My JWHA Paper on the Egyptian Alphabet

[wenglund]

As added support for my hypothesis, the following is stated in a letter from W.W. Phelps to his wife, dated July 19 and 20, 1835:

"Beloved Sally:

Last evening we received your first letter after an absence of twelve weeks and twelve hours. Our tears of joy were the witness of its welcome reception....Brother Joseph remarked that it was as easy to shed tears while reading that letter as it was when reading the history of Joseph in Egypt. . . .The last of June, four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the "rolls of papyrus," contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham. God has so ordered it that these mummies and writings have been brought in the Church and the sacred writing I had just locked up in Brother Joseph's house when your letter came, so I had two consolations of good things in one day. These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing secret or hidden that shall not be revealed, and they come to the Saints. . . ." Phelps Letters)

Evidently, prior to July 19th (or in other words, early in July), the prophet had been "reading" the history of Joseph of Egypt, presumably from the "rolls of papyrus". So, the prophet's awareness of the contents of the papyrus went beyond simply knowing, by way of direct revelation, who the records were about, as Chris has suggested, to knowing by having "read" the record, as I have intimated.

Granted, Phelps doesn't indicate the means by which the prophet was able to read the history. However, since, as Chris suggests, the Egyptian alphabet and grammar wasn't completed until the end of the month, with the bulk of the work commencing on the 19th, it is reasonable to conclude that the reading was made possible by Joseph translating using the gift and power of God (as directly confirmed by John Whitmer, and as implied in the quotes I cited earlier).

Phelps also provides one more bit of evidence for why the saint's were willing to shell out $2,400.00 dollars to Chandler. It wasn't because they thought the mummies were worth it, as Chris argued, but rather because God ordered it, and this presumably because of the "sacred record", as I have argued.

I'm still waiting for the alleged hurricane to materialize.

Anyone see that "very large camel" that I am supposedly swallowing? An animal cracker, perhaps?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

WE:

I'm still waiting for the alleged hurricane to materialize.

So is Al Gore. But that's another topic altogether ...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

WE:

So is Al Gore. But that's another topic altogether ...

Well he has been disappoint this year. Lol.

[PacMan]

thews,

No mention of inspiration, but a failed attempt at translation.

Hehe...my dear boy. If Joseph included the notion of inspiration in his understanding of translation, then it would not be mentioned. And while I have shown that this is what he has meant in the past, beating your drum and insisting that it is impossible that he means the same here is a monumental endeavor. I wish you the best of luck in it, and am very content to let the readers decide for themselves not only who is right, but why you have failed to rebut the evidence that Joseph had previously used "translation" to describe inspirational projects. And with that established, you have also failed to show that this use ever changed. And thus, I am right. And you are not.

And stolen from Wade:

"About the first of July, 1835, there came a man having four Egyptian Mummies, exhibiting them for curiosities, which was a wonder indeed, having also some words connected with them which were found deposited with the mummies, but there being no one skilled in the Egyptian language therefore could not translate the record. After this exhibition Joseph the Seer saw these records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records which gave an account of our forefathers, much of which was written by Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren, which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the Saints." (Book of John Whitmer 1832-1846)

Game. Set. Match. Sorry.

Best,

PacMan

[thews]

thews,

Hehe...my dear boy. If Joseph included the notion of inspiration in his understanding of translation, then it would not be mentioned. And while I have shown that this is what he has meant in the past, beating your drum and insisting that it is impossible that he means the same here is a monumental endeavor. I wish you the best of luck in it, and am very content to let the readers decide for themselves not only who is right, but why you have failed to rebut the evidence that Joseph had previously used "translation" to describe inspirational projects. And with that established, you have also failed to show that this use ever changed. And thus, I am right. And you are not.

Best,

PacMan

And once again we nothing but idle lefthanded insults and no mention of anything that was posted. Because you obviously missed it...

mormonthink.com

... with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. -- a more full account of which will appear in its place as I proceed to examine or unfold them (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

[July, 1835] -- The remainder of this month I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients. (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 238)

When Joseph Smith states he was "continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham," the operative word in that sentence is "to" as from one thing to another. He continues with, "and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients." The ancients Joseph Smith was describing, were supposedly the ones who supposedly wrote what was on the papyrus. In the first quote he states, "I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt." In that sentence, the operative word would be "contained" as Joseph Smith claims the rolls, through hieroglyphics, contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph of Egypt.

Logic conlcusion: Jospeh Smith contends that the papyrus he bought, contained the writings of Aberaham and he translated them to the Book of Abraham. Slice it and dice it all you wish, but your logic in attempting to find a backdoor out of the incorrect translation is meaningless unless you address these two statements and how you interpret them differently than I have presented.

But let's not stop there... what about the Book of Joseph?

http://mormonthink.com/boaweb.htm

The Book of Joseph.

Joseph, in describing the papyri, said that one of the scrolls contained the writings of Abraham and the other the writings of Joseph of Egypt. Much of the papyri referred to as the Book of Joseph was rediscovered and is now the church's possession. It also has been examined by Egyptologists and identified as the Egyptian Book of the Dead for the lady Ta-shert-Min, daughter of Nes-Khensu" and has nothing to do with Joseph of Egypt.

What a papyrus is, is a funerary text from the Book of breathings, or the pagan book of the dead. Why anyone would assume they were anything other than that defies logic, as we all know they were found inside a mummy. That's what a papyrus is... it's to be used by the dead in the afterlife. Your logic is flawed and your claim of being "right" should at least address the above before you make that claim, because I disagree with you. No matter how you wish to argue it, the doctrine of the Book of Abraham by Joseph Smith is from the pagan book of the dead. Would you agree?

[PacMan]

thews,

My point was very simply. And it is unquestionably proved. I've nothing more to say. If you'd like to debate a NEW question, well...that's a possibility.

PacMan

[Chris Smith]

I just hope this new bit of supportive evidence can withstand the alleged hurricane-force winds of the critics' counter-arguments (assuming there are any).

I have explicitly affirmed that JS provided verbal translations of the Book of Joseph in July. Another evidence of this is a comment in a letter of W. W. Phelps that month about how brother Joseph commented that it was as easy to shed tears while reading Sally Phelps's letters as while reading the record of Joseph of Egypt. (EDIT: Ah, I see you later found this.) Cowdery, of course, provided extensive information about this-- focusing almost entirely on the interpretation of the Book of the Dead vignettes-- in his letter to William Frye. And in a blessing for Oliver, Joseph made reference to an event in Joseph of Egypt's life that is otherwise unknown. It is possible that there was at some point a written translation of the Book of Joseph, but we have no evidence of that.

Anyway, I don't understand why you think this rebuts some argument of mine, but obviously you've misunderstood me.

[Chris Smith]

Evidently, prior to July 19th (or in other words, early in July), the prophet had been "reading" the history of Joseph of Egypt, presumably from the "rolls of papyrus". So, the prophet's awareness of the contents of the papyrus went beyond simply knowing, by way of direct revelation, who the records were about, as Chris has suggested, to knowing by having "read" the record, as I have intimated.

This seems to be the source of the confusion. I never stated that "direct revelation" was exclusive of "reading" the records (or interpreting the pictures). I'm just arguing that we don't need to have had a Book of Abraham written down in early July for the prophet to have known these were Joseph and Abraham's records. To the contrary, if the case of the Book of Joseph is any indication, it seems that most or all of the information received about the patriarchal authorship of the papyri at this time was not written until later.

It wasn't because they thought the mummies were worth it, as Chris argued, but rather because God ordered it, and this presumably because of the "sacred record", as I have argued.

You're right about that. In fact, they seem not even to have particularly wanted to buy the mummies. Chandler just wouldn't sell the records without selling the mummies with them. If you'll recall earlier, I said that JS placed Katumin in the context of creation and rediscovering Egypt after the flood. So there was ample material in the initial portion of the Egyptian Alphabet to suggest that these were sacred records. And if Joseph ordered that they be purchased, as you suggest, then that would certainly have been enough to explain the willingness of the brethren to do so. Then, I suggest, Chandler refused to part with his Pharaohnic family without charging an arm and a leg.

I will grant you, however, that it's very possible the HoC entry is wrong, and the verbal identification occurred before the purchase. The John Whitmer and W. W. Phelps quotes you gave do seem to imply that. Although since they collapse all of early July and skip over the specifics of the meeting with Chandler, the implication doesn't mean much in terms of deciding the question. If it was before the purchase that JS made the identification, I still think the written material Chandler certified was the Katumin portion of the Alphabet. That just seems to me to be what the evidence indicates.

Peace,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

CS:

I'm just arguing that we don't need to have had a Book of Abraham written down in early July for the prophet to have known these were Joseph and Abraham's records.

I think prior history argues against this conclusion. Anything he received via revelation concerning the papyri he would have directed to be written down. He took the papyri home with him the night of July 4, 1835. The precedent would have been for him, with scribe at the ready, to have made sure that anything he received via revelation concerning the papyri would have been dutifully recorded. The very reason we have such a robust documentary record of Joseph Smith is because he seldom, if ever, violated the commandment given to him to record everything he said and did.

Your conclusion, quite frankly, is driven by your agenda rather than by what we know about Joseph Smith

[Chris Smith]

By the way, I got my edition of Revelations and Translations today. The title of the March, 1832 revelation is "A Sample of pure Language given by Joseph the Seer". The "pure" words that are given are Awman, Son Awman, Sons Awman, and Awman Angls-men. The copy in the BCR seems to have been copied by John Whitmer from an original dictated by Joseph to John Johnson.

[thews]

thews,

My point was very simply. And it is unquestionably proved. I've nothing more to say. If you'd like to debate a NEW question, well...that's a possibility.

PacMan

You have addressed nothing, but if you have nothing more to say, at least you had the opportunity to do so, as I presented a lot of data for you to comment on.

[Chris Smith]

I think prior history argues against this conclusion.

Although there were things Joseph received by revelation that weren't written down until later reminiscences, I agree with you that it was unusual. But in this case, we have a lack of manuscript evidence that the Book of Joseph was ever translated, and we also have a lack of evidence that such a translation was ever written. It would be curious, for example, if the HoC recorded the creation of the GAEL but not the translation of the Book of Joseph, if such a translation had occurred. We also have no quotations from the Book of Joseph in any of the extant sources. What we have, mostly, are just explanations of the vignettes on the papyrus. I'm inclined to think that JS sat down with Phelps and Cowdery and explained the pictures verbally, the same way he did with numerous other visitors to Kirtland and Nauvoo thereafter. Perhaps the reason his explanations weren't written down at the time is that it would have necessitated the copying of all of the pictures, a laborious task to say the least.

I believe he then received the rest of the first three chapters during the subsequent translation episode immediately following the purchase of the papyri. In fact, I believe I have identified very persuasive evidence to that effect.

I have shared, in detail, a large number of my findings on this board (including the unpublished ones). I'm not sure why I have done so, if you are not willing to do the same. Instead you have treated my work with contempt while making mysterious references to your own superior wisdom, to be dispensed at some long-deferred parousia.

If this is going to be a deathmatch between substance and bluster, then I'm afraid substance has more substantial things to do (namely, homework) and is going to have to bow out.

-Chris

[dblagent007]

This entire paragraph evidences the fact that you aren't really giving my KEP theory any serious thought, because you clearly haven't even stopped to think it through.

This theory of yours requires a level of mental gymnastics that I can't achieve. Whenever I try to think it through I get a huge headache from the tangled web of problems it creates.

It is obvious that these men sincerely believed they had a "primer," but they didn't have any way (unlike Champollion) to determine which Egyptian characters from the papyri corresponded to that primer.

Really? JS repeatedly identified one of the papyri as containing the record of Abraham did he not? In fact, didn't he identify a particular character as being Abraham's signature? Why can't we just assume that his scribes, some of whom were very close to JS, actually knew which papri he repeatedly referred to?

So, until they could somehow focus on a particular part of the papyri, they couldn't possibly attempt to "decipher the meaning" of individual characters. What they had to do first was to somehow stumble on a pattern that would connect the primer to a specific set of characters on the papyri.

So they were trying to "stumble on a pattern" eh? Oh man, this theory raises a lot of problems. First, why did they invent characters to help them find the pattern? Second, how does this explain that different blocks of text (both characters and BoA text in each block) are written in the handwriting of different scribes? What pattern searching process were they using that would result in such an outcome? Third, does your theory confirm that they believed each Egyptian character could result in huge chunks of English text? If not, why did they record a character adjacent to large chunks of text? I could go on and on, but I'll let you respond to these questions first.

You know what, I've changed my mind. I'm not going to go there for your benefit. It's pointless. If you ever find it within you to want to seriously consider the explanation, you can seek out what I intend to get printed on this topic. I am convinced that I have nothing to gain at this point from wasting my time floating these things on this or any other message board.

The problem is that your theory is not serious. If it actually helped to explain the evidence rather than create 10x more questions than it answers then maybe you would have something.

[William Schryver]

dblagent007:

The problem is that your theory is not serious. If it actually helped to explain the evidence rather than create 10x more questions than it answers then maybe you would have something.

We shall see.

Incidentally, your comments above only confirm to me, once again, that you really aren't following what has been said. This despite the fact that I am persuaded that the import of the evidence and arguments I have given to date is apparently being understood by others. I have, over the course of this thread, received correspondence (either PMs or e-mails) from others following along that indicate to me that it shouldn't be as difficult as you are evidently making it to both make sense of what I have said, and to correlate it to the long-standing issues and arguments relevant to the "big picture" debate concerning the relationship of the KEP to the BoA.

But no matter. I will press on. I've made it clear that I'm not making my full case on this message board. I don't intend to. Of course, that means that there will be, unavoidably and yet necessarily, a certain amount of time that will transpire between now and when those arguments can appear in print. After all, I've only recently reached a point in my research where the theory, arguments, and accompanying evidence on these things has, in my judgment, matured sufficiently that a formal articulation thereof will be possible.

In the meantime, my detractors can console themselves with the thought that all I have said is mere bluster, and that nothing substantive will ever come of it. If I were in their shoes, I'd probably do the same. Thankfully, I'm not.

[dblagent007]

We shall see.

Yes we shall.

Incidentally, your comments above only confirm to me, once again, that you really aren't following what has been said. This despite the fact that I am persuaded that the import of the evidence and arguments I have given to date is apparently being understood by others. I have, over the course of this thread, received correspondence (either PMs or e-mails) from others following along that indicate to me that it shouldn't be as difficult as you are evidently making it to both make sense of what I have said, and to correlate it to the long-standing issues and arguments relevant to the "big picture" debate concerning the relationship of the KEP to the BoA.

Just to be clear, I am not discussing the somewhat narrow issues you, Wade, and Chris are discussing. I am talking about how your "scribes decipher Egyptian characters" theory makes no sense from a macro standpoint. I guess I shouldn't expect you to get the point this time when you couldn't above . . . at least until I posted some pictures.

I'm not really surprised that you're not going to address the problems I identified. I mean how can you say with a straight face that the scribes didn't know which papyri contained the book of Abraham when JS was repeatedly telling everyone? What, JS will tell every Tom, ****, and Harry that happens by, but he won't tell his own scribes?

I am glad you have a cadre of mysterious people reassuring you in the background. You're gonna need it if the day ever comes when you explain the details of your theory.

But no matter. I will press on. I've made it clear that I'm not making my full case on this message board. I don't intend to. Of course, that means that there will be, unavoidably and yet necessarily, a certain amount of time that will transpire between now and when those arguments can appear in print. After all, I've only recently reached a point in my research where the theory, arguments, and accompanying evidence on these things has, in my judgment, matured sufficiently that a formal articulation thereof will be possible.

More promises of future refutations. A good 70+% of what you say about the BoA consists of this kind of stuff.

In the meantime, my detractors can console themselves with the thought that all I have said is mere bluster, and that nothing substantive will ever come of it. If I were in their shoes, I'd probably do the same. Thankfully, I'm not.

More of the same.

[Paul Osborne]

William Schryver,

My dear friend, no one can better bury the KEP than YOU. May it rest in peace and may its words be silenced forever like the coolness of the grave on a foggy night.

It is dead and buried, you killed it. RIP.

Paul O

[William Schryver]

dlbagent007:

I am talking about how your "scribes decipher Egyptian characters" theory makes no sense from a macro standpoint.

I don't have time right now to respond to your other comments, but if you think the sentence above is an accurate reflection of what I have been arguing, then it is confirmed to me that you really have been reading my comments through the cloudy lens of your presuppositions.

[dblagent007]

I have shared, in detail, a large number of my findings on this board (including the unpublished ones). I'm not sure why I have done so, if you are not willing to do the same. Instead you have treated my work with contempt while making mysterious references to your own superior wisdom, to be dispensed at some long-deferred parousia.

Without real evidence and legitimate theories, this is what Will's brand of BoA apologia has been reduced to.

Critic version of Will Schryver: I have only now researched the BoA sufficiently to confidently predict that within the ten years only the most intransigent BoA apologist will fail to acknowledge that the catalyst theory is the only plausible BoA production method. I utterly refuse to share these theories on a message board, but all apologists should be shaking in fear for the day when I will finally publish my magnum opus on this subject. Then everyone will know how misguided all BoA apologists have been for so many years beginning with Nibley, down through Rhodes, Gee, Hauglid, and even the mighty rhetorician William Schryver. You just wait (and keep waiting, and keep waiting). [repeat this message in almost every post I write about BoA criticisms for the indefinite future]

[Mortal Man]

In the 1835 D&C, the "United Order" revelations were disguised as ancient narratives of the City of Enoch through the use of Adamic "code names". Thus Joseph Smith was Enoch, Lyman Wight was Baneemy, and so on. A few of the Adamic codenames have a vague, anagrammatical similarity to the names of the people they denote. Thus Rigdon was Pelagoram, Oliver was Olihah, and Martin Harris was Mahemson. It is because of this precedent that I think Don's suggestion about the GAEL's Oliblish being Oliver and Waines being William Wines Phelps has merit.

Interesting...

[dblagent007]

dlbagent007:

I don't have time right now to respond to your other comments, but if you think the sentence above is an accurate reflection of what I have been arguing, then it is confirmed to me that you really have been reading my comments through the cloudy lens of your presuppositions.

Heaven forbid that I should reduce that big block of bold text you use to represent your theory into a shorthand phrase. From now on, I will make sure to repeat the whole thing every time I reference it.

Hence: I am talking about how your "The Kirtland Egyptian Papers are the evidence that those who produced them were attempting to decipher hieratic Egyptian by using the previously revealed English text of a portion of the Book of Abraham as a primer" theory makes no sense from a macro standpoint. There everything okay now?

[Mortal Man]

As added support for my hypothesis, the following is stated in a letter from W.W. Phelps to his wife, dated July 19 and 20, 1835:

"Beloved Sally:

Last evening we received your first letter after an absence of twelve weeks and twelve hours. Our tears of joy were the witness of its welcome reception....Brother Joseph remarked that it was as easy to shed tears while reading that letter as it was when reading the history of Joseph in Egypt. . . .The last of June, four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the "rolls of papyrus," contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham. God has so ordered it that these mummies and writings have been brought in the Church and the sacred writing I had just locked up in Brother Joseph's house when your letter came, so I had two consolations of good things in one day. These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing secret or hidden that shall not be revealed, and they come to the Saints. . . ." [http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/Phelps-letters.html]Phelps Letters)

Evidently, prior to July 19th (or in other words, early in July), the prophet had been "reading" the history of Joseph of Egypt, presumably from the "rolls of papyrus". So, the prophet's awareness of the contents of the papyrus went beyond simply knowing, by way of direct revelation, who the records were about, as Chris has suggested, to knowing by having "read" the record, as I have intimated.

Granted, Phelps doesn't indicate the means by which the prophet was able to read the history. However, since, as Chris suggests, the Egyptian alphabet and grammar wasn't completed until the end of the month, with the bulk of the work commencing on the 19th, it is reasonable to conclude that the reading was made possible by Joseph translating using the gift and power of God (as directly confirmed by John Whitmer, and as implied in the quotes I cited earlier).

Phelps also provides one more bit of evidence for why the saint's were willing to shell out $2,400.00 dollars to Chandler. It wasn't because they thought the mummies were worth it, as Chris argued, but rather because God ordered it, and this presumably because of the "sacred record", as I have argued.

I'm still waiting for the alleged hurricane to materialize.

Anyone see that "very large camel" that I am supposedly swallowing? An animal cracker, perhaps?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let's look at your quotes in their original context.

Kirtland, Ohio July 19 and 20, 1835

Beloved Sally:

Last evening we received your first letter after an absence of twelve weeks and twelve hours. Our tears of joy were the witness of its welcome reception. By these things we learn the value of each other's society and company, and friendship, and virtue. Taking the letter altogether, with all its candor and information and remembered names, it is, by all who have read it, called a very good one. Brother Joseph remarked that it was as easy to shed tears while reading that letter as it was when reading the history of Joseph in Egypt.

My affection for you and my children grows very fast. I mean it grows purer and more ardent. I want you to send for Elder Calvin Beebe as soon as you receive this and have Sarah baptized. [He acknowledges letters from the two older girls, Sabrina and Mehitabel and then continues]: Sarah, Henry, James and Lydia--I must wait to see them a good while yet. They have my tears and mother's smiles until I come, with the blessings of the Lord. I hope and pray that the children will be diligent and learn well this summer.

You say the roof of the house leaks; I have written to have another good roof put on over the one now on. You can get 12 penny nails out of the goods at Brother Corrill's; and anything else that you actually need that is among those goods, get and use and I will settle the matter.

I was sorry to hear that the cupboard fell down because I forgot to nail it, but now it is so. If there is not crockery enough at Brother Corrill's, go to Liberty and replenish it.

I rejoice that that little branch of the Church had the Spirit of God to reject the temptations of Satan. The Lord will remember their constancy. Teacher Music [could possibly be Samuel Musick] is right that you need our prayers and we need yours, for by faith and prayer and every good word and work, we can enter into the joys of our Lord.

I am much pleased that Elder Peter Whitmer stepped forth to vindicate the cause of the Saints; God will bless him for all such noble acts. He that will do good can do it without a commandment. The fact is, the Saints must work righteousness.

The elders are mostly out a preaching. Elder Corrill, Newel Knight and Elias Higbee work upon the House of the Lord. Elder Emmett goes to school. Elder Morris Phelps and Priest Duncan arrived last week. We have just learned that Bishop Partridge and Elder Morley are back.

The last of June, four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the "rolls of papyrus," contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham. God has so ordered it that these mummies and writings have been brought in the Church and the sacred writing I had just locked up in Brother Joseph's house when your letter came, so I had two consolations of good things in one day. These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing secret or hidden that shall not be revealed, and they come to the Saints.

Forever yours,

W. W. Phelps

The opening theme here is tears of joy at receiving Sally's letter. The "history of Joseph in Egypt" in the first paragraph more likely refers to the Biblical account. Sally was probably cognizant of Joseph's fondness for that story as a result of a sermon or private conversation. Note that it's "history" of Joseph, not "roll", "scroll", "record", "writings" or "papyrus" of Joseph. More importantly, he hasn't even told her about the mummies yet. That comes much later after he talks about the children, a leaky roof, a falling cupboard, temptations of Satan, Peter Whitmer and preaching Elders. Only after all that does he mention the mummies and rolls of papyrus. After he tells her about their arrival, he finally informs her that one "contained the sacred record kept of Joseph". Sally could not have interpreted the opening paragraph the same way you have, since she didn't find out about the papyrus until the last paragraph.

[William Schryver]

PO:

My dear friend, no one can better bury the KEP than YOU.

[Paul Osborne]

[Chris Smith]

What Adamic word corresponds to

[cdowis]

deleted, answered my own question.