I recently had a bit of correspondence with a certain Mormon historian that I think illustrates my point about memory. I will not give the historian's name, because my intent is not to make fun of him/her. Suffice to say that this person has a Ph.D and is known for being a rather progressive thinker, at least in certain respects. I contacted this person because I had reason to believe he/she might be in possession of a previously untapped reminiscence of the missing Book of Abraham papyri. The person responded,
Hi Chris,
[...] Lillian Foote Petersen was the keeper of Warren Foote's beautiful hand-written journals for many years (he was her paternal grandfather). During this time she transcribed in typed form the parts of the journals that she thought were the most interesting, along with a few pages she had xeroxed (this was expensive in those days). [...] Then she gave the original journals (I believe there are 3 vols.) to the Church Historian's Office, I think in the early 1970s. I remember too that there was a Church News article about her donation at the time. It was also at about that time that I read the parts she had typed out, which included Warren Foote's description of seeing Joseph Smith display and talk about the papyrus scroll. It's been a long time since I read it, but as I recall, Warren describes how he and his father (David Foote) saw Joseph unrolling the scroll and that it had both black and red ink on it. Joseph explained to them personally that the black was the text and the red in the margins was a scribe's commentary. Warren describes the scroll as very long, so it had to be unrolled on the floor.
I hope I am remembering this correctly. I have the booklet [...] in some box somewhere in my house. [...] write me back at the end of June, and I will try and get a copy of this for you. The original could be verified in the Church Historian's vaults.
Because I read Warren Foote's first-hand account over 30 years ago, I have never accepted the idea that the known papyri fragments are the source of the Book of Abraham. Warren describes what he saw at the time and had no reason to elaborate in any way because he would have had no idea what the questions and controversy around the texts would be later.
Suffice to say, I was quite surprised to learn about this account. Another witness who specifically mentions a very long roll and the papyrus being rolled out on the floor because of its length? More talk of red ink on the Abraham papyrus? If such an account existed, it would be an apologist's wet dream. I admit I began to doubt my conclusions just a bit. Could I be wrong? Might John Gee be right about the big picture, even though he's gotten so many of the details wrong? The person who sent me this email had read the account personally, is very intelligent and well-educated, and is not at all someone I would consider an "apologist". I had no reason to distrust what he/she told me.
I proceeded to poke around the Internet a bit looking for the Warren Foote typescript. Lo and behold, I found it! I wrote back to my correspondent,
Is this the account you had in mind? It says simply,
In the afternoon we went into the [Kirtland] Temple, and saw the mummies and the records which were found with them (we went to the prophet's house to see him. This is the first I saw him, and shook hands with him). Joseph Smith Sen. explained them to us, and said the records were the writings of Abraham & Joseph, Jacob's son. Some of the writing was in black, and some in red. He said that the writing in red, was pertaining to the Priesthood.
This is from a typescript of Foote's autobiography and journal. Is there something more than this? Thanks,
-Chris
My correspondent wrote back,
This definitely sounds familiar! I told you it had been a long time since I read the entry. I may have conflated and therefore expanded it from something I heard from Hugh Nibley, from whom I took several classes at BYU.
I will still check out what I have for you just to be sure. Again, it won't be for a while [...]
I found this exchange interesting because it illustrates so well my earlier observations about how our memory of something consists not of a photographic recording of the object itself, but rather of the interpretive schema into which we place it. In this case, the Foote reminiscence was placed into an interpretive scheme constructed by Hugh Nibley that emphasized the length of the scroll and the presence on the Abraham roll of red ink. Our nameless historian even imports some details (like the scroll unrolled on the floor) from another account reported by Nibley (which I personally think was a false memory on his part)! Was our mystery scholar lying to me about the content of the Foote account? NO! He/she simply misremembered.
Moral of the story: memory is a much more twisted and fragile web than certain polemicists would have us believe (when it suits their purposes). It must be treated responsibly, using the critical methods of the historical discipline, and not in the haphazard way it has been used to try to bolster the case for the Book of Abraham's divine inspiration.
-Chris
