What in the world are they talking about?

Egypt?

Suprised. I figued the anti's would be all over this one. It must be to early and the boys are still sleeping off there friday night drunk.

Professor Gee said: "The best theory isn´t out there."

True, because all apologetic theories are silly attempts to explain away the simple facts. No theory is required if this issue is approached disinterestedly. The conclusion is clear: the Book of Abraham is a fraud. Professor Nibley stumbled all over himself trying to find an explanation, any explanation. Good luck, Professor.

I think John Gee is the only trained person in the world to look at the evidence on this topic and somehow come to the conclusion that the BOA is what Joseph Smith said it was. The evidence is overwhelming. Apologists like Gee are doing the church no favors by continuing to deceive themselves and others on this topic....frankly, as a member of the church, it's embarrassing.

The BYU besides being a major memorial to the biggest polygimist in America, also distinguishes itself with some of the most simple minded staff. If they keep this up it will be a total embarrassement to be a graduate of this institution.

I saw this coming from a mile away. People are going to willy-nilly condemn the works of LDS scholars without an honest evaluation of the evidence, sound reasoning and looking at both sides of the picture. After all, it is easier than actualy taking the time to look at the issue at hand, isn't it?

I was at that presentation and can honestly say that there was a lot more to it than the article addressed. As a matter of fact, this article barely scratched the surface of what Dr. Gee discussed. Those interested should continue to read Dr. Gee's material on the Book of Abraham, especially the "Studies in the Book of Abraham" series that he helped edit and "A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri". There is evidence of the Book of Abraham's authenticity, despite what Spencer would like us to think, that has been document by the work of Dr. Gee and other LDS scholars.

P.s. Great Ad Hominem, Rita. Way to attack the arguer and not the argument. I greatly appreciated your thorough analysis that combined solid evidence and sound reasoning.

“the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” 1 Corinthians 2:14. I think the Apostle Paul knew some of these posters.

If the book contains truth then it makes no difference where or how JS obtained it.Truth is truth any way you spread it.Truth,opinion and facts are not always in agreement.

I love how critics always use certain phrases when describing Mormon claims such as the authenticity of the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham. Usually, those phrases are something like, "no shred of evidence", or "Mormon apologists are an embarrassment", etc. etc.

Yet, regarding the Book of Abraham, it really takes a scholar to understand its origins, whether one believes it or not. The simple minds of some of the critics who posted above leaves me to just chuckle.

How about doing a scholarly study of the issues, rather than a 3rd-grade understanding of it? For example, I have yet to read a good critic respond to the book by John Tvedtnes, Brian M. Hauglid, and John Gee, "Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham", and the many similarities and parallels to knowledge about Abraham in the Book of Abraham that was not well-known or unknown to Joseph Smith.

It takes a deep study and even a scholar to understand this stuff. A simple wave of the hand with a junior high type of comment won't dismiss it.

Sometimes just a little common sense can go a long way to understanding, and one doesn't need to lower their standards to studing the obvious ignorance of fools.

There can be no simple explanation for the BoA other then JS was a fraud. Therefore the BoA requires a difficult and complex explanation. The fact that pieces of the papyri exist and match the drawings in the BoA but can now be read by scholars and don't match JS' translation is a smoke screen by anti's who refuse to be intellectually honest.

I have explained this before but apparently it must be given again.

The current tranlation was a translation of the current egytian document.

Which was probably based on an older document which been since changed and twisted by the egyptians for their use.

The original was probably an abrahamic document.

Thus both interpretations are true.

It just depends whether are considering the old original or the newer corrupted version.

Plus most the papyri, but few fragments, were destroyed in a fire in chicago, so what can we really know?

Ken, it does make a difference how it came to be. Current canonized LDS scripture says that it is "a Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt" and "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." Members of the LDS church rely on that basis in that context....testimonies are built upon that foundation. It's not honest to allow members to continue to believe that it is an actual translation when it is not. It is deceptive. And it seems a bit tacky to start giving squishy explanations or to say "it doesn't really matter" when the story and the facts don't match up. This is not a "you need more faith" issue. Joseph Smith put a physical tangible object to the world to be tested by evidence - and it doesn't hold up. Gee and others, you are welcome to your own interpretations (as out there as they may be), but not to your own set of facts. You and the church should at least acknowledge what those facts are in an article like this.

The Book of Abraham is non-Scriptural from the internal evidences - plurality of Gods, the planet Kolob being nigh to the throne of God, etc. These are aberations that contradict our two books of Scripture - The KJV Bible and The Book of Mormon. I agree that Joseph Smith did NOT use the Urim and Thummim in regards to the BOA. Also, Joseph Smith from his own testimony gave the Urim and Thummim back to the Angel Moroni circa June 1829. This Urim and Thummim was not to be made available again, until it is given in the not too distant future to The Choice Seer (The American Indian Moses), who will then use them to translate the sealed part of the Book of Mormon plates, and also to translate the 10 other records of the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel, who are the Aboriginal or Indigenous Peoples located in the Asia-Australia-Pacific region of earth, with the one exception of the Inuit people (formerly called Eskimo) who are mainly located in the land of Inupiat (extreme north Canada) and Greenland. According to revelation, they are the the lost tribe of Benjamin.

Whenever an article begins with a sentence that includes both "Egyptology" and "BYU," confusion is sure to follow. I have no doubt that Jospeh Smith was a pious and inspired man of genius whose message of love and life has helped many souls. But please, the BoM was not translated from "Reformed Egyptian" because there is no such language. And the Israelites did not roam the Americas.
Lets get real for a second: Yes, Mormonism is a great development in religion, and the Church is overall a force for good and wholesome love. But the mythologies promoted by so-called "Egyptologists" and other "scholars of Ancient Studies" at the Y are so loony they make us sound ridiculous and keep people away from the Church.