NOM

Corsair wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 10:45 am
These hieroglyphics were apparently the original endowment and thus was so profoundly sacred that the church and the high level apologists don't bring it up. My mother-in-law excitedly showed it to me. I think I disappointed her when I asked if any non-church Egyptologists had examined it and provided an interpretation.

If the church had possession of an ancient Egyptian papyrus that reputable Egyptologists translated as the equivalent of the LDS temple endowment, no blood oath in the world would prevent church leadership from trumpeting the fact.

What it sounds like your MIL was talking about was Nibley's book from the early 1970's, "The Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment," in which he attempted to draw connections between elements of the JSP and the LDS temple endowment.

Let's just say it was far from being a direct translation.

consiglieri wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 2:07 pm What it sounds like your MIL was talking about was Nibley's book from the early 1970's, "The Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment," in which he attempted to draw connections between elements of the JSP and the LDS temple endowment.

Let's just say it was far from being a direct translation.

I'm sure that "The Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment" was the ultimate source. I doubt that my MIL ever actually read a Nibley book. But the Bruce Porter video referenced that material. Porter did mention conversations that he had with Nibley years ago that were not in any of Nibley's books.

My MIL was confident that Porter was a member of the Seventy. Any of my skeptical questions was met with indignant concern that Porter simply must be correct simply based on his church calling. I did my best to change the subject.