CA Steve

If the best evidence for a 1000 year civilization in the New World is a tribal name located in the Old World comprised of three similar consonants to a place name in the BoM, which is located on the coast where constructing a transoceanic vessel looks impossible due to available resources, that seems to be a problem.

Hi Robert, I am posting from my phone and not very good at it. I did not limit my response to the extant or known papyri from the JS collection. I believe Ritner's work points out that there is no evidence that any of the collection Joseph used to produce the BoA can be linked to the Biblical Abraham. This is not an anti-Mormon attack by Ritner as faithful LDS members can and do accept the BoA as scripture and still reject Mormon Egyptological apologetic arguments that somewhere on a missing portion of the artifacts was the actual text of the BoA. I see labeling Ritner as anti-Mormon as attempts to make accepting theories like the missing scroll a faith test. I do not see Ritner as anti-Mormon, but simply as one who is pointing out the problems with Mormon egyptological apologetics. There is a big difference.

Ritner isn't anti Mormon, he is anti Mormonegyptologist who insist that the BoA was on actually on the papyrus. One can be a faithful Mormon and agree with Ritner.

Seems to me that you and "Richard" are in the same boat when it comes to evidence.

Seems to be a bit of a conflict here. Science can demonstrate that EMoD is in the BoM but not test why it is there. Just a bit convenient.

Given the recent proscription on the use of the term, aren't we all supposed to be anti-Mormon now?

"Yesterday's anti-Mormon arguments became today's church essays".

If it is the same Stephen Thompson then he does not need a book or website from which to derive that information. Dr. Stephen E. Thompson holds a Ph.D. degree in Egyptology from Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island

The BoA volume in the JSPP is not a translation. I fail to see your point.

Dr Gee was paid to review the BoA volume. Multiple other Egyptologists were consulted on it. This is simply not true.

Have you read the JSPP volume on the BoA? Or perhaps you might be familiar with Chris Smith's article The Dependence of Abraham 1:1-3 on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, or Robert Ritner's article Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” — A Response or Mat Grey's article in Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity? These are just starting points for the historical and textual dependence of the BoA on the KEP.

Hi Robert. I do not believe the BoA text preceded the those sheets at all, nor do any of the authors I mentioned above, in fact that seems to be why Hauglid has changed his position from 2010 when he advocated for non extant pre-existing BoA text on which the KEP was based to now when he along with Jensen and all the other people involved with the JSPP BoAvolume argues in the that at best the KEP and the BoA manuscripts were a concurrent work and in all probability the KEP preceded the actual text of Abr:1-2:18. The Church obviously agreed with him too in that they published the JSPP BoA volume. I wonder if you have had the opportunity to read the Mat Grey's chapter in the recently released Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity? I am still awaiting my copy but i understand he conclusively shows how the parts of the BoA were translated in Nauvoo in 1842 by showing the dependency of the BoA on the Seixas grammar, a book that JS did not have access to until after the KEP was produced? This alone shows that the BoA was not a reverse engineering project but was done before parts of the BoA were finished.

Hi Calm, The crux of the issue here; is do we or do we not have the papyri from which Joseph Smith derived the Book of Abraham? If, as many believe, the extant Hor scroll was where Joseph Smith thought Abr1-2:18 was located, then the arguments you present above are moot. Contrary to Robert's assertion above, if the textual and historical records show that the Hor scroll is the origin of the BoA text, then Egyptological questions are mostly just background questions and translations that have already been answered. There is very little dispute about what the actual Hor scroll says and what its original purpose was. The onus, in my view, is upon those who think the BoA came from a missing scroll to refute the historians and textual analyst's work which has shown it to be from the Hor scroll. So far I have not seen anything challenging Hauglid's, Jensen's, (and a host of other scholars at the JSPP) Vogel's, Smith's, Cooks' ,Grey, and others work which strongly argue for the Hor scroll on historical and textual basis.

Wouldn't the same arguments used to defend the lack of DNA evidence for Lamanites also apply to actually identifying any descendants of the lost ten tribes? From the church DNA essay.

My wife was diagnosed with a glioblastoma brain grade 4 tumor , 1 year ago. She has been through 2 brain surgeries in this year and 4 different types of chemotherapy's. Mask will save more lives than our wives.