Why did the Church keep the KEP hidden?

[_sock puppet]

I don't remember where I read about it, but I do recall being surprised that Sidney Sperry and others were using the KEP back in the 1930s. And, unless I'm badly misremembering when Walter Whipple did his concordance of it, it was before the Tanners published it. So it was evidently circulating among LDS before then.

Archives and institutions have myriad documents. That not every one of them has been published just reflects the way things are, not some sort of conspiracy.

Don

That's just spinning, Don. At least Nibley had the balls to postulate a reason for, what Nibley acknowledged, the Church hiding the KEP.

[_Darth J]

I don't remember where I read about it, but I do recall being surprised that Sidney Sperry and others were using the KEP back in the 1930s. And, unless I'm badly misremembering when Walter Whipple did his concordance of it, it was before the Tanners published it. So it was evidently circulating among LDS before then.

If this was all public knowledge, how could you possibly have been "surprised"?

Archives and institutions have myriad documents. That not every one of them has been published just reflects the way things are, not some sort of conspiracy.

Don

"Some sort of conspiracy" is not the alternative to nondisclosure. Leonard Arrington, for example, wrote about how several of the Bretheren were very unhappy that he published letters from Brigham Young to one of his sons about how his (son's) time on his mission could be used to reduce his use of tobacco. Arrington had the same issues about disclosing Brigham Young admonishing male members of the Church not to chew tobacco inside the Tabernacle, or the fact that the bishop's storehouse carried plug tobacco and whiskey.

Your statement above is somewhat inconsistent with the apologist explanation of "well, it was just a bunch of documents, and nobody even really knew what they were."

Your "way things are" theory also fails to explain why the Church still hasn't shown the whole thing to anyone who cares to see them (via online scans or otherwise).

[_DarkHelmet]

If you were a church leader, wouldn't you want to keep them hidden?

[Guest]

Don,

Here is what Clark said in his Book of Abraham Symposium paper:





So according to this, Clark and Sperry were told "on several occasions" by the Church Historians that "perhaps" the Alphabet and Grammar had been lost. They were only granted access when they presented evidence that the documents were in fact in the Church's collection. It is possible that the Historians didn't know what they had, but it is also possible that Clark and Sperry were misled.

We also learn from Clark's account that he and Sperry were not given permission to speak publicly about the document even after they were granted access to it. As for Clark's claim that Sperry soon announced the discovery in print, Jerald and Sandra Tanner point out that this isn't exactly true. (Sorry about the bad quality of this scan.)



Sperry frames his comments as speculation or inference, and gives no indication that he had actually seen the document or that it actually existed. For example, he says, "It seems therefore quite probable that the alphabet was arranged very much as follows..." It seems in retrospect that he knew the layout because he had seen the alphabet with his own eyes, but his statement actually implies otherwise.

So, I don't think it's entirely correct that these documents were not suppressed. They may well have been released to a few scholars, but even that seems to have been done reluctantly and on condition of non-disclosure.

Peace,

-Chris

[_sock puppet]

If you were a church leader, wouldn't you want to keep them hidden?

Only if I thought that they disproved Joseph Smith's claims about translating the Book of Abraham. Did the Church leaders have someone translate the Egyptian characters in the left column/margin of the KEP pages, and when those leaders found out there was no connection would there become a reason to keep quiet about them. Until then the leaders had no reason to realize how toxic the KEP are. So before that could have been done, why were they kept under wraps?

[_Blixa]

Chris, in the Clark paper you quoted, he makes reference to something he read in the Desert News that confirmed the KEP was in the church historian's office. This quote is left out of the section you reproduced. Do you know what the Desert News was saying about the KEP at that time and why?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Good question. That's not clear from the paper. Clark gives a reference for the Deseret News article, but doesn't explicitly quote it. Here is the passage preceding what I posted above. Perhaps what the Des News did was quote the passage from the Church Historian's Office Journal that Clark quotes in the second paragraph.

[_Blixa]

Someone will have to hie to whatever archival form the Desert News issues are in. Still in microfilm, as far as I know, and on site only in places in Utah. I'm really curious what the context for that quote was, assuming it even is the quote. But, yeah, "second shelf from the bottom" is a pretty clear direction for where to find them!

[_bcspace]

So according to this, Clark and Sperry were told "on several occasions" by the Church Historians that "perhaps" the Alphabet and Grammar had been lost. They were only granted access when they presented evidence that the documents were in fact in the Church's collection. It is possible that the Historians didn't know what they had, but it is also possible that Clark and Sperry were misled.

So, I don't think it's entirely correct that these documents were not suppressed. They may well have been released to a few scholars, but even that seems to have been done reluctantly and on condition of non-disclosure.

In other words, the accusations are false and there is only speculation regarding any apparent discrepancies. I agree.

[_Spider-to-the-Fly]

So according to this, Clark and Sperry were told "on several occasions" by the Church Historians that "perhaps" the Alphabet and Grammar had been lost. They were only granted access when they presented evidence that the documents were in fact in the Church's collection. It is possible that the Historians didn't know what they had, but it is also possible that Clark and Sperry were misled.

So, I don't think it's entirely correct that these documents were not suppressed. They may well have been released to a few scholars, but even that seems to have been done reluctantly and on condition of non-disclosure.

In other words, the accusations are false and there is only speculation regarding any apparent discrepancies. I agree.

Mr. bcspace,

At your nearby community college, there might be a course entitled Reading Comprehension 101 this fall quarter. Might I suggest you enroll.

Regards,

Spider.