FAIR - User contributions [en]

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers

2007-05-30T21:11:04Z

WillSchryver: /* Answer */

{{BofAPortal}}{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers}}
==Question==

What are the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and how do they relate to the Book of Abraham? Some critics of the Book of Abraham have claimed that these papers are evidence that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham; on what grounds do they make that claim, and how strong is it?

===Source(s) of criticism===
*Edward H. Ashment, "Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study." In ''The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture,'' edited by Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1990), 221–35.
*Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Nibley's Illusory Variants," ''mormonscripturestudies.com.''

==Answer==

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP) are a collection of documents written by various individuals, mostly dating to the Kirtland period of Church history (early- to mid-1830s), constituting some sort of study documents relating to the [[Book of Abraham papyri|Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri]].

The KEP comprise 16 documents encompassing a total of about 120 pages. They are typically divided into two categories:
*so-called Egyptian alphabet and grammar documents (KEPE), and
*Book of Abraham manuscript documents (KEPA).

The following table{{ref|table1}} gives a basic description of the KEP:

<table width="100%">
<tr style="font-weight: bold; background-color: #cccccc; text-align: left">
<th>Number</th>
<th>Date</th>
<th>Size</th>
<th>Handwriting</th>
<th>Title and Contents</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 1</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 volume, 31x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">W.W. Phelps & Warren Parrish</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Grammar & aphabet [sic] of the Egyptian language"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 2</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">2 leaves, 33x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">W.W. Phelps</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Egyptian counting"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 3</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 October 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">4 leaves, 32x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">W.W. Phelps</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Egyptian alphabet"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 4</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 October 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">9 leaves, 32x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Joseph Smith & Oliver Cowdery</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Egyptian alphabet"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 5</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 October 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">4 leaves, various sizes</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Oliver Cowdery</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[title lost, "Egyptian alphabet" (?)]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 6</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">26 Nov. 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 volume, 20x13 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Oliver Cowdery</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Valuable discovery of hiden [sic] records"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 7</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1837 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 volume, 20x16 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Oliver Cowdery</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"F.G.W." and "William"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 8</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">26 Nov. 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 leaf, 32x40 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">?</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 9</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">26 Nov. 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 leaf, 39x19 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">?</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 10</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Mounted Feb. 1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 leaf, 33x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">—</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] = Joseph Smith Papyrus (JSP) IX</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 1</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">10 leaves, 32x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">W.W. Phelps & Warren Parrish</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/1 Abraham 1:1]–2:18</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 2</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">4 leaves, 33x19 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Frederick G. Williams{{ref|fgw1}}</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] Abraham 1:4–2:6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 3</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">6 leaves, 32x19 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Warren Parrish</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] Abraham 1:4–2:2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 4</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Feb. 1842 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">18 leaves, 29x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Willard Richards</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] Abraham 1:1–3:26 (pages containing 2:19 - 3:17 missing)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 5</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">March 1842 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">4 leaves, various sizes</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Willard Richards</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2 Facsimile 2]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 6</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1842</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Broadside 32x19 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">—</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[back has a letter to Clyde Williams & Co., signed by Joseph Smith and W.W. Phelps]</td>
</tr>
</table>

The most extensive of these documents is KEPE 1, which is an intact bound book, containing 34 nonconsecutive pages of writing and 186 blank pages (an average of three written pages being followed by 18 to 20 blank pages).

===Provenance===

An inventory of Church records to be taken west from Nauvoo, prepared by Thomas Bullock in 1846, included an entry for "Egyptian Grammar in Jennetta's Trunk." This document presumably was KEPE 1. The Jennetta spoken of was the late wife of Willard Richards, the Prophet Joseph's secretary. The ''Journal History of the Church'' under the date 17 October 1855 lists the "Egyptian Alphabet" in an inventory of items moved into a new fire proof vault. This again appears to be KEPE 1. An 1847 inventory of Church property delivered to Newel K. Whitney for transport included "A small Parchment roll of Hieroglyphics," which may have included some of the loose KEP. It is also possible that some of the other, smaller documents were brought separately to the Great Basin by W.W. Phelps.

Although these documents were brought west from Nauvoo and deposited in the Church Historian's office, they were unused and eventually knowledge of them was lost. The Egyptian Grammar was eventually rediscovered in that office by Sidney Sperry in 1935.

KEPA 1 has a separate provenance. This document was given by Emma Smith to her second husband, Lewis Bidamon, who gave it to his son, Charles Bidamon, from whom the great collector of Mormon artifacts, Wilford Wood, obtained it. Wood presented this document to the Church in 1937.

The various provenances of these documents raise the possibility that the collection we have today may not be complete, with some of the documents having been lost.

===Publication history===

The KEP have never been formally published. Jerald and Sandra Tanner obtained a microfilm copy of most of them and informally published them as ''Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar''.{{ref|tanner1}} An improved informal compilation was prepared by H. Michael Marquardt under the title ''The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers'' in 1981. This informal edition is still available from Marquardt's website. Both of these editions are photocopies made from microfilm.

The late Steven F. Christensen, before he was murdered by [[Mark Hofmann]], commissioned the photographing of the KEP at the LDS Church archives. From those negatives, at least four sets of color prints were made, including copies now in the possession of George D. Smith, Edward Ashment and Brent Metcalfe. Metcalfe has indicated that he intends to formally publish the KEP, with high quality color photographs on the left side of the page and an improved transcription on the right side of the page.

It is also possible that the Maxwell Institute at BYU will do its own critical edition of the KEP as part of its ''Studies in the Book of Abraham'' series, although no formal announcement of such a publication has been made.

===Approaches to the KEP===

The attitude of critics to the KEP is straightforward. They claim that:
#the KEP represent the translation working papers for the Book of Abraham;
#the KEPE demonstrate that Joseph did not understand Egyptian;
#the KEPA demonstrate that the Sensen Papyrus was believed to be the source for the Book of Abraham; and
#since the Sensen Papyrus is in fact not the Book of Abraham but an Egyptian Book of Breathings, whatever else the Book of Abraham may be, it is not an accurate translation of an ancient Egyptian text.

LDS approaches to the KEP have been more varied. The first significant scholarly study of the matter, by John A. Tvedtnes and Richley Crapo, appeared in a series of articles under the auspices of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology from 1968 to 1970. Their theory was that the Sensen Papyrus may have represented a mnemonic device to bring to mind a longer oral tradition — a tradition that corresponded to the narrative of the Book of Abraham as we know it. This theory was grounded in two observations. First, the hieratic symbols copied into the left margin of the KEPA documents were complete morphemes, as opposed to the inappropriate breaks one would expect of someone who could not read Egyptian. Second, in every case the meaning of the hieratic word in the margin shows up in some relevant way in the much longer English text corresponding to the hieratic word. Of course, lots of other words and concepts are present as well, but the meaning of the hieratic word in each case is present in the English text.

While a fascinating study, the Tvedtnes and Crapo mnemonic device theory never really caught on. Hugh Nibley was intrigued by this possibility at first, but then decided to go in a different direction. Nibley authored a seminal, lengthy study of the KEP in ''BYU Studies'' entitled "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers." He did not attempt to defend the KEP as revelatory documents (other than the English portions of the KEPA). Rather, he took the view that the KEP represent either a preliminary "studying it out" stage in the process, or a (failed) attempt to reverse engineer the English translation so as to decipher the Egyptian language. In other words, the English text of the Book of Abraham was received by revelation as opposed to a purely mechanical process. While Joseph was involved in the KEP project, a theme of Nibley's piece is to portray the efforts of Phelps, Cowdery, and Parrish as largely independent of Joseph. Nibley's take has become the dominant LDS view, and has been echoed more recently in several publications by John Gee.

A small minority of LDS commenters on the KEP seeks to defend the supposed revelatory character of these documents, viewing them through the lenses of kabbalism or extreme symbolism. This point of view is characterized by Joe Sampson and Paul Osborne. It has few adherents.

===Directions for further research===

The KEP have been understudied to date. Although preliminary studies have appeared from various perspectives, much more work needs to be done. In many ways, apologetic or polemical approaches to these documents are premature. Rather, they first must be studied rigorously from a scholarly perspective.

An essential tool that is a prerequisite to further progress is a critical edition of the texts. While the microfilm photocopy editions are sufficient for limited purposes and to get a feel for the documents, they are totally inadequate for serious scholarly study. Ideally such scholarship should be grounded in a study of the original documents. To the extent that they are not available for such study, the color photographs that are in existence would be the next best basis for such an edition.

In addition to a careful and clear presentation of the texts, such a study needs to focus on understanding the documents. Too much energy has been devoted to attack and defense, and not enough to basic comprehension of what those involved in the project thought they were doing and how they went about their work. Such a study needs to bring the same standards and attention to detail to these texts as Royal Skousen has brought to his study of the original text of the Book of Mormon.

Some of the contested issues for which such a study could bring enlightenment include the following:

'''Involvement of Joseph Smith.''' That Joseph was involved to some degree in the project is clear. His handwriting appears on two of the documents, and there are references to the project in his journals. The extent of his involvement is a hotly contested issue and needs to be clarified. Nibley tried hard to distance Joseph from the work of the scribes. Edward Ashment has questioned Nibley's position. The extent to which Joseph dominated the process, or the scribes acted independently, or they all acted in a collaborative manner, needs to be clarified.

'''Meaning of technical teminology like "degree" and "part."''' The terms "degree" and "part" seem to be used in the KEPE as some sort of grammatical terms of art. If so, their meaning needs to be divined. Conversely, John Tvedtnes has argued that they are not grammatical terms at all, but refer to locations on the papyri where particular symbols were located; a sort of latitude and longitude system. According to this view, for example, the "first part" is what we call [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_1 Facsimile 1], and the "first degree" of that part is the first column of the facsimile, while the second degree is the second column. The second part is what Nibley called the Small Sensen Papyrus (JSP XI), and the first degree of the second part is the first of its columns, counting from the right (away from Facsimile 1). Tvedtnes' explanation of the usage of these terms needs to be evaluated; in particular, as to whether his proposed system in fact holds for all uses of the terms.

'''Sequencing issues.''' Although the handwriting of the various scribes on the various texts has been identified, there are numerous sequencing issues that need to be explored. Is there a way to determine in what sequence the documents were created? Were the KEPA documents created at the same time from dictation, or were they visually copied from a single source, and if so, which is the source document? Which was written first on the page, the hieratic symbols in the left margin of the KEPA documents or the English text to the right? Were the hieratic symbols visually copied from the Sensen Papyrus, and if so, can we determine who copied them?

'''Why does the scope of the English text not match the scope of the hieratic symbols in the margins of the KEPA?''' There is a substantial and obvious disproportion between the hieratic symbols in the left margins of the KEPA and the accompanying English text to the right. Critics often trot this fact out as an obvious artifact of Joseph's ignorance. But this begs the question why such a disproportion exists. The disproportion is so marked that surely even Joseph must have been aware of it, and even if he were not, the scribes involved in the project had training in other languages, such that they would have noted and objected to the disproportion. It is not enough merely to observe the disproportion, it must be explained. What did these men think they were doing? Does the juxtaposition of a hieratic symbol and an entire paragraph of English text intend to reflect a translation process, or is some other process at work, and if so, what?

==Conclusion==

When the [[Book of Abraham papyri|Joseph Smith Papyri]] were recovered and the connection to the KEP first noted, Richard Howard, then historian for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now the Community of Christ), was quoted in the ''New York Times'' as saying that we now knew the ''modus operandi'' by which the translation of the Book of Abraham was created.{{ref|nytimes1}} But this statement was premature. We do not know the ''modus operandi'' at all. If we were to give the complete KEPE, the Joseph Smith Papyri, and the sequence of hieratic symbols in the left margins of the KEPA to someone and then ask that person to recreate the Book of Abraham from those materials, he could not do it. The KEPE reflect a half-dozen phrases from the Book of Abraham, isolated and without context. But the Book of Abraham is a coherent and readily understood English text, while the KEPE is a mishmash of linguistic gobbledigook. It is completely unclear how one could possibly get the one from the other.

So what is the source of the English Book of Abraham? It would appear that the English text is a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, whatever he thought he was doing in the KEP project. There is ample precedent for the Prophet receiving such coherent revelations before that did not require him to wrestle with deciphering the ancient language of the source text. For example, [[Book of Mormon translation method|Joseph translated the Book of Mormon almost entirely without reference to the gold plates themselves]], and [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/7 Doctrine and Covenants 7] is a revealed translation of ancient parchment that was never physically given to Joseph.

The coherent words of the Book of Abraham did not really come from an analysis of the Egyptian materials before Joseph or his scribes; rather, they were uttered by the Prophet and recorded by his scribes in much the same way that all of his revelatory translation projects were done. To the critic, this simply means that Joseph made up the coherent text and dictated it; to the believer, it means that Joseph received the text by revelation and dictated it. The difference between these two points of view is a matter of faith, and not something that any amount of wrangling with the KEP can resolve definitively one way or the other.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|table1}}John Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri," p. 196.
#{{note|fgw1}}Until recently this was believed to be W.W. Phelps' handwriting.
#{{note|tanner1}}''Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar,'' Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Company, 1966.
#{{note|nytimes1}}''New York Times,'' 2 May 1970.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BookofAbrahamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BookofAbrahamFAIR}}

===External links===

{{BookofAbrahamLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BookofAbrahamPrint}}

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers

2007-05-30T21:10:14Z

WillSchryver: /* Answer */

{{BofAPortal}}{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers}}
==Question==

What are the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and how do they relate to the Book of Abraham? Some critics of the Book of Abraham have claimed that these papers are evidence that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham; on what grounds do they make that claim, and how strong is it?

===Source(s) of criticism===
*Edward H. Ashment, "Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study." In ''The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture,'' edited by Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1990), 221–35.
*Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Nibley's Illusory Variants," ''mormonscripturestudies.com.''

==Answer==

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP) are a collection of documents written by various individuals, mostly dating to the Kirtland period of Church history (early- to mid-1830s), constituting some sort of study documents relating to the [[Book of Abraham papyri|Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri]].

The KEP comprise 16 documents encompassing a total of about 120 pages. They are typically divided into two categories:
*so-called Egyptian alphabet and grammar documents (KEPE), and
*Book of Abraham manuscript documents (KEPA).

The following table{{ref|table1}} gives a basic description of the KEP:

<table width="100%">
<tr style="font-weight: bold; background-color: #cccccc; text-align: left">
<th>Number</th>
<th>Date</th>
<th>Size</th>
<th>Handwriting</th>
<th>Title and Contents</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 1</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 volume, 31x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">W.W. Phelps & Warren Parrish</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Grammar & aphabet [sic] of the Egyptian language"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 2</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">2 leaves, 33x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">W.W. Phelps</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Egyptian counting"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 3</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 October 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">4 leaves, 32x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">W.W. Phelps</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Egyptian alphabet"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 4</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 October 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">9 leaves, 32x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Joseph Smith & Oliver Cowdery</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Egyptian alphabet"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 5</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 October 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">4 leaves, various sizes</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Oliver Cowdery</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[title lost, "Egyptian alphabet" (?)]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 6</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">26 Nov. 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 volume, 20x13 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Oliver Cowdery</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Valuable discovery of hiden [sic] records"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 7</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1837 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 volume, 20x16 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Oliver Cowdery</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"F.G.W." and "William"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 8</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">26 Nov. 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 leaf, 32x40 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">?</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 9</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">26 Nov. 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 leaf, 39x19 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">?</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 10</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Mounted Feb. 1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 leaf, 33x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">—</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] = Joseph Smith Papyrus (JSP) IX</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 1</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">10 leaves, 32x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">W.W. Phelps & Warren Parrish</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/1 Abraham 1:1]–2:18</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 2</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">4 leaves, 33x19 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Frederick G. Williams{{ref|fgw1}}</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] Abraham 1:4–2:6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 3</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">6 leaves, 32x19 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Warren Parrish</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] Abraham 1:4–2:2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 4</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Feb. 1842 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">18 leaves, 29x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Willard Richards</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] Abraham 1:1–3:26 (2:19 - 3:17 missing)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 5</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">March 1842 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">4 leaves, various sizes</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Willard Richards</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2 Facsimile 2]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 6</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1842</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Broadside 32x19 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">—</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[back has a letter to Clyde Williams & Co., signed by Joseph Smith and W.W. Phelps]</td>
</tr>
</table>

The most extensive of these documents is KEPE 1, which is an intact bound book, containing 34 nonconsecutive pages of writing and 186 blank pages (an average of three written pages being followed by 18 to 20 blank pages).

===Provenance===

An inventory of Church records to be taken west from Nauvoo, prepared by Thomas Bullock in 1846, included an entry for "Egyptian Grammar in Jennetta's Trunk." This document presumably was KEPE 1. The Jennetta spoken of was the late wife of Willard Richards, the Prophet Joseph's secretary. The ''Journal History of the Church'' under the date 17 October 1855 lists the "Egyptian Alphabet" in an inventory of items moved into a new fire proof vault. This again appears to be KEPE 1. An 1847 inventory of Church property delivered to Newel K. Whitney for transport included "A small Parchment roll of Hieroglyphics," which may have included some of the loose KEP. It is also possible that some of the other, smaller documents were brought separately to the Great Basin by W.W. Phelps.

Although these documents were brought west from Nauvoo and deposited in the Church Historian's office, they were unused and eventually knowledge of them was lost. The Egyptian Grammar was eventually rediscovered in that office by Sidney Sperry in 1935.

KEPA 1 has a separate provenance. This document was given by Emma Smith to her second husband, Lewis Bidamon, who gave it to his son, Charles Bidamon, from whom the great collector of Mormon artifacts, Wilford Wood, obtained it. Wood presented this document to the Church in 1937.

The various provenances of these documents raise the possibility that the collection we have today may not be complete, with some of the documents having been lost.

===Publication history===

The KEP have never been formally published. Jerald and Sandra Tanner obtained a microfilm copy of most of them and informally published them as ''Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar''.{{ref|tanner1}} An improved informal compilation was prepared by H. Michael Marquardt under the title ''The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers'' in 1981. This informal edition is still available from Marquardt's website. Both of these editions are photocopies made from microfilm.

The late Steven F. Christensen, before he was murdered by [[Mark Hofmann]], commissioned the photographing of the KEP at the LDS Church archives. From those negatives, at least four sets of color prints were made, including copies now in the possession of George D. Smith, Edward Ashment and Brent Metcalfe. Metcalfe has indicated that he intends to formally publish the KEP, with high quality color photographs on the left side of the page and an improved transcription on the right side of the page.

It is also possible that the Maxwell Institute at BYU will do its own critical edition of the KEP as part of its ''Studies in the Book of Abraham'' series, although no formal announcement of such a publication has been made.

===Approaches to the KEP===

The attitude of critics to the KEP is straightforward. They claim that:
#the KEP represent the translation working papers for the Book of Abraham;
#the KEPE demonstrate that Joseph did not understand Egyptian;
#the KEPA demonstrate that the Sensen Papyrus was believed to be the source for the Book of Abraham; and
#since the Sensen Papyrus is in fact not the Book of Abraham but an Egyptian Book of Breathings, whatever else the Book of Abraham may be, it is not an accurate translation of an ancient Egyptian text.

LDS approaches to the KEP have been more varied. The first significant scholarly study of the matter, by John A. Tvedtnes and Richley Crapo, appeared in a series of articles under the auspices of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology from 1968 to 1970. Their theory was that the Sensen Papyrus may have represented a mnemonic device to bring to mind a longer oral tradition — a tradition that corresponded to the narrative of the Book of Abraham as we know it. This theory was grounded in two observations. First, the hieratic symbols copied into the left margin of the KEPA documents were complete morphemes, as opposed to the inappropriate breaks one would expect of someone who could not read Egyptian. Second, in every case the meaning of the hieratic word in the margin shows up in some relevant way in the much longer English text corresponding to the hieratic word. Of course, lots of other words and concepts are present as well, but the meaning of the hieratic word in each case is present in the English text.

While a fascinating study, the Tvedtnes and Crapo mnemonic device theory never really caught on. Hugh Nibley was intrigued by this possibility at first, but then decided to go in a different direction. Nibley authored a seminal, lengthy study of the KEP in ''BYU Studies'' entitled "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers." He did not attempt to defend the KEP as revelatory documents (other than the English portions of the KEPA). Rather, he took the view that the KEP represent either a preliminary "studying it out" stage in the process, or a (failed) attempt to reverse engineer the English translation so as to decipher the Egyptian language. In other words, the English text of the Book of Abraham was received by revelation as opposed to a purely mechanical process. While Joseph was involved in the KEP project, a theme of Nibley's piece is to portray the efforts of Phelps, Cowdery, and Parrish as largely independent of Joseph. Nibley's take has become the dominant LDS view, and has been echoed more recently in several publications by John Gee.

A small minority of LDS commenters on the KEP seeks to defend the supposed revelatory character of these documents, viewing them through the lenses of kabbalism or extreme symbolism. This point of view is characterized by Joe Sampson and Paul Osborne. It has few adherents.

===Directions for further research===

The KEP have been understudied to date. Although preliminary studies have appeared from various perspectives, much more work needs to be done. In many ways, apologetic or polemical approaches to these documents are premature. Rather, they first must be studied rigorously from a scholarly perspective.

An essential tool that is a prerequisite to further progress is a critical edition of the texts. While the microfilm photocopy editions are sufficient for limited purposes and to get a feel for the documents, they are totally inadequate for serious scholarly study. Ideally such scholarship should be grounded in a study of the original documents. To the extent that they are not available for such study, the color photographs that are in existence would be the next best basis for such an edition.

In addition to a careful and clear presentation of the texts, such a study needs to focus on understanding the documents. Too much energy has been devoted to attack and defense, and not enough to basic comprehension of what those involved in the project thought they were doing and how they went about their work. Such a study needs to bring the same standards and attention to detail to these texts as Royal Skousen has brought to his study of the original text of the Book of Mormon.

Some of the contested issues for which such a study could bring enlightenment include the following:

'''Involvement of Joseph Smith.''' That Joseph was involved to some degree in the project is clear. His handwriting appears on two of the documents, and there are references to the project in his journals. The extent of his involvement is a hotly contested issue and needs to be clarified. Nibley tried hard to distance Joseph from the work of the scribes. Edward Ashment has questioned Nibley's position. The extent to which Joseph dominated the process, or the scribes acted independently, or they all acted in a collaborative manner, needs to be clarified.

'''Meaning of technical teminology like "degree" and "part."''' The terms "degree" and "part" seem to be used in the KEPE as some sort of grammatical terms of art. If so, their meaning needs to be divined. Conversely, John Tvedtnes has argued that they are not grammatical terms at all, but refer to locations on the papyri where particular symbols were located; a sort of latitude and longitude system. According to this view, for example, the "first part" is what we call [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_1 Facsimile 1], and the "first degree" of that part is the first column of the facsimile, while the second degree is the second column. The second part is what Nibley called the Small Sensen Papyrus (JSP XI), and the first degree of the second part is the first of its columns, counting from the right (away from Facsimile 1). Tvedtnes' explanation of the usage of these terms needs to be evaluated; in particular, as to whether his proposed system in fact holds for all uses of the terms.

'''Sequencing issues.''' Although the handwriting of the various scribes on the various texts has been identified, there are numerous sequencing issues that need to be explored. Is there a way to determine in what sequence the documents were created? Were the KEPA documents created at the same time from dictation, or were they visually copied from a single source, and if so, which is the source document? Which was written first on the page, the hieratic symbols in the left margin of the KEPA documents or the English text to the right? Were the hieratic symbols visually copied from the Sensen Papyrus, and if so, can we determine who copied them?

'''Why does the scope of the English text not match the scope of the hieratic symbols in the margins of the KEPA?''' There is a substantial and obvious disproportion between the hieratic symbols in the left margins of the KEPA and the accompanying English text to the right. Critics often trot this fact out as an obvious artifact of Joseph's ignorance. But this begs the question why such a disproportion exists. The disproportion is so marked that surely even Joseph must have been aware of it, and even if he were not, the scribes involved in the project had training in other languages, such that they would have noted and objected to the disproportion. It is not enough merely to observe the disproportion, it must be explained. What did these men think they were doing? Does the juxtaposition of a hieratic symbol and an entire paragraph of English text intend to reflect a translation process, or is some other process at work, and if so, what?

==Conclusion==

When the [[Book of Abraham papyri|Joseph Smith Papyri]] were recovered and the connection to the KEP first noted, Richard Howard, then historian for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now the Community of Christ), was quoted in the ''New York Times'' as saying that we now knew the ''modus operandi'' by which the translation of the Book of Abraham was created.{{ref|nytimes1}} But this statement was premature. We do not know the ''modus operandi'' at all. If we were to give the complete KEPE, the Joseph Smith Papyri, and the sequence of hieratic symbols in the left margins of the KEPA to someone and then ask that person to recreate the Book of Abraham from those materials, he could not do it. The KEPE reflect a half-dozen phrases from the Book of Abraham, isolated and without context. But the Book of Abraham is a coherent and readily understood English text, while the KEPE is a mishmash of linguistic gobbledigook. It is completely unclear how one could possibly get the one from the other.

So what is the source of the English Book of Abraham? It would appear that the English text is a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, whatever he thought he was doing in the KEP project. There is ample precedent for the Prophet receiving such coherent revelations before that did not require him to wrestle with deciphering the ancient language of the source text. For example, [[Book of Mormon translation method|Joseph translated the Book of Mormon almost entirely without reference to the gold plates themselves]], and [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/7 Doctrine and Covenants 7] is a revealed translation of ancient parchment that was never physically given to Joseph.

The coherent words of the Book of Abraham did not really come from an analysis of the Egyptian materials before Joseph or his scribes; rather, they were uttered by the Prophet and recorded by his scribes in much the same way that all of his revelatory translation projects were done. To the critic, this simply means that Joseph made up the coherent text and dictated it; to the believer, it means that Joseph received the text by revelation and dictated it. The difference between these two points of view is a matter of faith, and not something that any amount of wrangling with the KEP can resolve definitively one way or the other.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|table1}}John Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri," p. 196.
#{{note|fgw1}}Until recently this was believed to be W.W. Phelps' handwriting.
#{{note|tanner1}}''Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar,'' Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Company, 1966.
#{{note|nytimes1}}''New York Times,'' 2 May 1970.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BookofAbrahamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BookofAbrahamFAIR}}

===External links===

{{BookofAbrahamLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BookofAbrahamPrint}}

Book of Mormon/Language/"Adieu"

2007-05-30T20:50:43Z

WillSchryver: /* Conclusion */

{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon:Adieu}}
==Criticism==
{{s||Jacob|7|27}} ends with the phrase, "Brethren, adieu." Critics claim that because ''adieu'' is French, it shows that Joseph Smith composed the Book of Mormon, and not an ancient author.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 322.
*Ed Decker, ''Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism'' (Eugene: Harvest House, 1995), 113.
*James White, ''Letters to a Mormon Elder'' (Southbridge, MA: Crowne, 1990), 145.

==Response==

There are at least three problems with the ''adieu'' argument against the Book of Mormon.

# Critics often overlook the fact that the word ''adieu'' was not on the plates.
# The translator of a work can use words from any language he chooses in order to convey the meaning of the text to his readers, so that even if ''adieu'' had been a foreign word (e.g., French) to Joseph Smith, there is nothing either unusual or problematic with his choosing that word in his translation.
# Critics mistakenly think the word ''adieu'' is not an English word.

===Neither English nor French was on the plates===

The English Book of Mormon is a ''translation''. This means that it is no more likely that the word ''adieu'' appeared on the plates than did the words ''yea'', ''beginning'', or ''sword''. Except for proper nouns and a few other possibly transliterated nouns, no word that appears in the English version of the Book of Mormon can be said to have been on the ancient Nephite plates. Similarly, the phrase "and it came to pass" never appeared anywhere on the Nephite plates. Whatever character, word, or phrase that had been engraved on the plates was translated by Joseph Smith into what he felt was an approximate equivalent in English.

Despite the fact that the word ''adieu'' appears in the English translation of the Book of Mormon, the word ''adieu'' was certainly not known to any Book of Mormon writer, the word ''adieu'' was never used by any Book of Mormon writer, and the word ''adieu'' did not appear anywhere on the Nephite plates.

===A translation can legitimately use words from many languages===

The goal of a translation is to take a text written in one language and to make it understandable to someone who does not understand that language. Anyone who has had the need to translate knows that frequently there is no way to convey all of the meanings, nuances, and subtleties of the original text in the new language. Translators are free to select words and phrases that they feel best convey the original meaning and will best be understood by the readers of the translation.

For example, it would be perfectly acceptable for a translation from Japanese to English to include the non-English phrases ''ad hoc'', ''hoi polloi'', or ''savoir faire'' if those phrases seem to properly convey the original meaning and if the translator believes that readers will understand them.

''Adieu'' is Joseph's translation of a concept expressed by Jacob. ''Adieu'' implies "farewell until we meet with God," a fitting finale to Jacob's testimony and writing.

The appearance of non-English words (if there are any) in the Book of Mormon has absolutely no bearing on whether the Book of Mormon is authentic or whether the translation was properly done, and the presence of non-English words in the translated text would not imply that those non-English words appeared in the original text on the Nephite plates.

===''Adieu'' is an English word===

There is a common misunderstanding among some critics of the Book of Mormon that the word ''adieu'' is not an English word. This is not true. The problem stems from the fact that ''adieu'' is both an English word and a French word, and most English speakers are more familiar with its use in a French context.

''Adieu'' is a perfectly good English word that has appeared in English dictionaries, English literature, and in common English usage from long before Joseph Smith to the present. ''Adieu'' entered the English language in the 14th century. It entered from Middle French, not modern French, and it has been part of English for approximately 800 years. ''Adieu'' has been part of the English language longer than the word ''banquet,'' which is also a word in modern French, but ''banquet'' entered the English language only in the 15th century. ''Adieu'' is no less English than ''commence'', ''nation'', ''psychology'', ''Bible'', ''vision'', or any other word that can be traced back to Latin, Greek, German, French, Spanish, or any other language.

The presence of ''adieu'' is no more a challenge to the historicity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon than the 36 uses of ''banquet'' in the NIV is a challenge to the historicity and authenticity of the Bible.

====French at the time of Christ?====

In 1737, William Whiston (1667-1752) produced a translation of ''The Life of Flavius Josephus'', written by a Jew born in Jerusalem in A.D. 37. Whiston's translation reads, in part:

:Thus have I set down the genealog of my family as I have found it described in the public records, and so bid adieu to those who calumniate me...{{link|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/lfjos10.txt}}

Presumably, the critics would have us believe that Whiston is claiming that Josephus, a first century Jew, spoke French (a language not yet invented) because he uses the term ''adieu''?

====Shakespeare====
William Shakespeare is nothing if not an English writer. He uses ''adieu'' frequently in his plays:

;Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5:GHOST:Adieu, adieu! Hamlet, remember me.{{link|url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/hamlet/hamlet.1.5.html}}
;The Merchant of Venice, Act 2, Scene 3: LAUNCELOT Adieu! tears exhibit my tongue. Most beautiful/ pagan, most sweet Jew!{{link|url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/merchant/merchant.2.3.html}}
;Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 5: ROMEO: Dry sorrow drinks our blood. Adieu, adieu!{{link|url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/romeo_juliet/romeo_juliet.3.5.html}}
;The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 2, Scene 1: NYM: Adieu. I love not the humour of bread and cheese,/ and there's the humour of it. Adieu.

There are over a hundred other examples.{{link|url=http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=adieu&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-tech.mit.edu%2F&safe=images}}

====The Declaration of Independence====
[[Image:Declar_independ_rough_p4.JPG |left|frame|A segment of the fourth page of Thomas Jefferson's rough draft of the Declaration of Independence (original in Library of Congress). The red line indicates where Jefferson has written "everlasting Adieu," which he later struck out and replaced with the text underlined in green, "eternal separation." [http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration4.gif *]]]

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence read, in part (beginning shown in image by blue underline):
:...be it so, since they will have it: the road to glory & happiness is open to us too; we will climb it in a separate state, and acquiesce in the necessity which pronounces our everlasting Adieu!{{ref|jefferson1}}

Jefferson later crossed out "everlasting Adieu," and replaced it with "eternal separation."{{ref|jefferson2}}

====Dictionaries====
Noah [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=adieu Webster's] 1828 American dictionary demonstrates that ''adieu'' was perfectly good English the year prior to the Book of Mormon's translation:
<blockquote>
ADIEU', Adu'.
:Farewell; an expression of kind wishes at the parting of friends.
ADIEU', n. A farewell, or commendation to the care of God; as an everlasting adieu.
</blockquote>

It should be noted that the word ''adieu'' appears in nearly every modern English dictionary, and that although its etymology may be listed as being from Middle French, the word itself is not indicated as being a non-English word.

====John and Charles Wesley====

The Wesley brothers, founders of Methodism, used ''adieu'' in some of their hymns:
;Hymn 285: I'll bid this world of noise and show/ With all its glittering snares, adieu! {{link|url=http://www.ccel.org/w/wesley/hymn/jwg02/jwg0285.html}}
;Hymn 809: VAIN, delusive world, adieu...{{link|url=http://www.ccel.org/w/wesley/hymn/jwg08/jwg0809.html}}{{ref|wesley1}}

Furthermore, John Wesley was fond of ''adieu'', using it many times in his personal letters. A few examples follow; more are available{{link|url=http://www.google.com/custom?q=adieu&btnG=Search&safe=vss&cof=GL%3A0%3BT%3A%23000000%3BLC%3A%230000FF%3B&domains=wesley.nnu.edu&sitesearch=wesley.nnu.edu}}
;5 January 1763 to Charles Wesley:"We join in love to you both. My wife gains ground. She is quite peaceable and loving to all. Adieu!"{{link|url=http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1763.htm}}
;17 May 1742 to Charles Wesley:Let all the brethren pray for me. Adieu!{{link|url=http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1742.htm}}
;15 December 1772 to Charles Wesley:My love to all. Adieu!{{link|url=http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1772b.htm}}
; 16 December 1772 to Mrs. Bennis:My dear sister, adieu{{link|url=http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1772b.htm}}

====Irenaeus - French in the 1st Century?====

Speaking after quoting {{s||Deuteronomy|33|9}}, the early Christian author Irenaeus (A.D. 115–202) had ''his'' ancient writings translated as follows:

:But who are they that have left father and mother, and have said adieu to all their neighbours, on account of the word of God and His covenant, unless the disciples of the Lord?{{ref|irenaeus1}}

Is this a legitimate translation, or was Irenaeus non-existent and the translator a fraud for using "adieu"?

====Use Among LDS Members====
[[Image:Emma_hymn_book_2.jpg |right|frame|Index page from the 1835 book of hymns chosen by Emma Smith for use in the Church. Original from BYU library.{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docitemview.exe?CISOROOT=/NCMP1820-1846&CISOPTR=533}}]]

Closer to home, hymn #52 (penned by a non-LDS author) was collected by Emma Smith for the use of the Church. In this hymn, ''adieu'' is used twice in the first line:

:Adieu, my dear brethren adieu,
:Reluctant we give you the hand,
:No more to assemble with you,
:Till we on mount Zion shall stand.{{ref|hymn1}}

Clearly, this was a word familiar to Joseph and his contemporaries. The Church's the ''Times and Seasons'' periodical used the word 19 times.

==Conclusion==
''Adieu'' is simply one English word among many in the Book of Mormon translation. It was in common use among Latter-day Saints and others in Joseph's era. Critics hope to cause confusion simply because the word's French associations are more familiar to the general reader and because the critics can misrepresent the nature of translated works to people who don't carefully consider what the critics are asserting. In the final analysis, the presence of the word "adieu" in the English translation of the Book of Mormon cannot be construed to indicate anything beyond the fact that Jacob intended to communicate "farewell forever, or until we meet God."

==Endnotes==
#{{note|jefferson1}} Thomas Jefferson, "original Rough draght," ''The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 1:1760-1776'' (Princeton University Press, 1950), 423–428. {{link|url=http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html}}
#{{note|jefferson2}} Editorial Note, "Jefferson's 'original Rough draught,' of the Declaration of Independence," (Princeton University Press, 2004), 6, footnote 16. {{link|url=http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html}}
#{{note|wesley1}} John Wesley, ''A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the People Called Methodists'' (London: Wesleyan-Methodist Book Room, 1889 [1780]), #285, #809.
#{{note|irenaeus1}} {{Anf1|author=Irenaeus|article=Against Heresies|citation=book 4 chap. 8|vol=1|start=471}}
#{{note|hymn1}}Emma Smith, ''A Collection of Sacred Hymns, for the Church of the Latter Day Saints'' Hymn 52, (Kirtland, Ohio: F. G. Williams & co., 1835), 68.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Book_of_Mormon_Anachronisms}}
===FAIR web site===
*{{Tg|topic=Book of Mormon Textual Issues|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai111.html}}

===External links===
*"How is it that the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob ends his account with the French word 'adieu'?]", ''farms.byu.edu'' (accessed 14 June 2006).{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/questionday.php?id=1 }}
*Jeff Lindsay, "Why does the Book of Jacob end with a French word?]", ''lightplanet.com'' (accessed 14 June 2006).{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_french.htm}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Edward J. Brandt|article=Why are the words ''adieu, bible,'' and ''baptize'' in the Book of Mormon? These words weren't known in Book of Mormon times|date=October 1985|start=17}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20october%201985%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC1}}

===Printed material===
*{{revisited1|author=Daniel C. Peterson|article=Is the Book of Mormon True? Notes on the Debate|start=Chapter 6}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc%5fid=264962}}