The Book of Abraham: NEW Research That Proves Critics Wrong

[Stargazer]

I present the following video from Thoughtful Faith that talks about the Book of Abraham and its production in connection with the papyri. It is long, and I don't know quite how to comment upon it. I am wondering if there will be a book produced based on the content, and I hope so. 

 

[Stargazer]

In the comments to this video on YouTube was the following entry:

The missionaries asked me to come to a discussion with them about a month ago and the man we were speaking with brought up the book of Abraham. After a little back and forth I ended up asking him “listen, if I could refute all of your concerns with facts that you could corroborate, would that change your mind or help you to ask God if the things the missionaries are trying to share with you are true?”

He said “I don’t think so”

That was it, that’s all that mattered and I at that point let the missionaries and the man know that I needed to get back to my family who I had left just before the wind down portion of our nightly routine.

The Millenium will come and go, and there will still be people who do not believe the gospel. But we press forward and share the truth of the restored gospel for those individuals who are willing to ask with a sincere heart, with real intent. For those who don’t have to be like Thomas and believe because they see, but see because they believe.

[webbles]

Quick note, this video is mostly discussing three different presentations:

The first is William's Schryver's presentation from 2010 dealing with the idea that the Egyptian Alphabet was an attempt to come up with a cipher.  That was discussed on this board back then and he was involved.  You can read an old posting from him at 

The second is Tim Barker's presentation in 2020 showing that Fascimile 2 includes characters from the papyrus that are also used to fill in gaps and that Joseph said that no translation was available.  You can read his full presentation at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/2020-fairmormon-conference/the-answer-under-our-heads

The third is a clip from an interview with Kerry Muhlestein where he discusses how the meaning of Egyptian images has changed over the 2000 years of its usage.  He also talks about how Jewish ideas (such as the name of Abraham) do show up in Egyptian documents.  I know this has been discussed here as well, such as 

 

[Navidad]

I think that JRR Tolkien, in his speech at St Andrews in 1938 speaks to these kinds of issues. He said, As a child . . . "I had no special 'wish to believe.' I wanted to know." In that one simple statement, he fills us in on the difference between belief (the domain of the faithful) and knowledge (the domain of the seeker) - to use my words. I Navidad, for example, have no need, nor any particular desire to believe in the Book of Abraham. Many on this forum have that need and do indeed believe. I Navidad, have no desire to prove anyone who believes in the Book of Abraham as wrong. That would be an impossible task, and one in which I would take no joy or satisfaction. There are others who would take great joy and satisfaction in converting me to a belief in, rather than a knowledge of The Book of Abraham. Part of my challenge is that I find no spiritual satisfaction in the Book of Abraham, as I do in the Book of Mormon. Ditto for Doctrine and Covenants. Neither speak to me as does the Bible and the spiritual part of the BOM. I have no desire or need to dig into the historicity of the BOM because I: 1. see no place for it in the history of Mexico, of which I have knowledge, and 2. I am content with its spiritual message of Christ of whom I am a believer. I have to run. I hope this makes some kind of sense to you all. Best, Navidad

[The Nehor]

New research that PROVES critics wrong!!!!

Then presents decades old research and theories. I remember some of the arguments on this board and its predecessors.

Also that would be a really really stupid cipher. The ciphers are whole concepts and ideas that take two sentences to write out. How often would they be repeated that you would need that specific word?

The “pure language” thing was a real thing though. John Dee got caught up in and/or scammed by it. The Enochian angelic conversations he had also involved the secrets of eternity and also a desire to find lost treasure.

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The “pure language” thing was a real thing though. John Dee got caught up in and/or scammed by it. The Enochian angelic conversations he had also involved the secrets of eternity and also a desire to find lost treasure.

Mormonism's engagement with the "pure language" ended, eventually, with the Deseret alphabet. It was an outgrowth of the restorationist theology - that idea that the prophecies needed to be fulfilled before the second coming. And the prophecy in Zephaniah about the pure language was one of these (and it is referenced in early LDS material - Phelps did a write up of this in 1834). Although Michael Hull Barton's time as a member of the LDS Church was brief, he was also influential in this specific area (having written a book about it in 1833: Something New, - A New and Perfect Alphabet. 

[ttribe]

Jacob Hansen has never had an original thought of substance in his apologetic endeavors. Expecting him to solve the mystery of the Book of Abraham is nothing more than wishful thinking.

[Stargazer]

Nevermind

Edited November 11, 2025 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 10/27/2025 at 3:17 PM, ttribe said:

Jacob Hansen has never had an original thought of substance in his apologetic endeavors. Expecting him to solve the mystery of the Book of Abraham is nothing more than wishful thinking.

You seem annoyed. 

[ttribe]

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You seem annoyed. 

Not really. I just have an opinion that might differ from yours. My observations are that Jacob likes to rage bait people, that he doesn't have in-depth knowledge of critical issues in Church History, and that when challenged he retreats into his sphere of control by saying "come on my show and debate me," which is a space where he can control the narrative. In my opinion, he is chasing clicks to monetize his Church membership and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Edited November 12, 2025 by ttribe

[ZealouslyStriving]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Not really. I just have an opinion that might differ from yours. My observations are that Jacob likes to rage bait people, that he doesn't have in-depth knowledge of critical issues in Church History, and that when challenged he retreats into his sphere of control by saying "come on my show and debate me," which is a space where he can control the narrative. In my opinion, he is chasing clicks to monetize his Church membership and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

My observations have been completely the opposite.

[Stargazer]

On 11/12/2025 at 6:05 PM, ttribe said:

Not really. I just have an opinion that might differ from yours. My observations are that Jacob likes to rage bait people, that he doesn't have in-depth knowledge of critical issues in Church History, and that when challenged he retreats into his sphere of control by saying "come on my show and debate me," which is a space where he can control the narrative. In my opinion, he is chasing clicks to monetize his Church membership and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I've been thinking about that. I am a small YouTube creator (my channel, A Yank in Sussex, is tiny, just 1.18k subscribers) and I do virtually nothing to promote the channel. And it's taken me 6 years to get as big as it is. Of course, my topic is so niche that even if I had heavily promoted it, it's doubtful it would have gotten much larger than it is. I am "this close" to monetizing it, but I've been "that close" for about a year now. Even then, if it finally crossed the threshhold, I think the channel might make me about $2 a month, tops. It's more a hobby than anything else. What I do is not highly beneficial to anyone, not even myself, except for my enjoyment in making the videos. 

But is Jacob chasing clicks in order to "monetize his Church membership" or is he chasing clicks in order to promote and defend the Church. You don't have a high opinion of his apologetic efforts, and that's fair (you're entitled to your opinion). But I've been watching his Thoughtful Faith channel for some time and I am very impressed with his efforts. I think he does a fair amount of good. If in the process of doing that good, isn't it fair that he makes some money doing it? If he didn't "chase clicks" then maybe you wouldn't be calling it monetizing his Church membership, but would his channel have grown to almost 63k subscribers? And wouldn't he be much less effective without those subs, clicks, and views?

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I've been thinking about that. I am a small YouTube creator (my channel, A Yank in Sussex, is tiny, just 1.18k subscribers) and I do virtually nothing to promote the channel. And it's taken me 6 years to get as big as it is. Of course, my topic is so niche that even if I had heavily promoted it, it's doubtful it would have gotten much larger than it is. I am "this close" to monetizing it, but I've been "that close" for about a year now. Even then, if it finally crossed the threshhold, I think the channel might make me about $2 a month, tops. It's more a hobby than anything else. What I do is not highly beneficial to anyone, not even myself, except for my enjoyment in making the videos. 

But is Jacob chasing clicks in order to "monetize his Church membership" or is he chasing clicks in order to promote and defend the Church. You don't have a high opinion of his apologetic efforts, and that's fair (you're entitled to your opinion). But I've been watching his Thoughtful Faith channel for some time and I am very impressed with his efforts. I think he does a fair amount of good. If in the process of doing that good, isn't it fair that he makes some money doing it? If he didn't "chase clicks" then maybe you wouldn't be calling it monetizing his Church membership, but would his channel have grown to almost 63k subscribers? And wouldn't he be much less effective without those subs, clicks, and views?

I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate about Jacob Hansen. I've interacted with him, I've argued with him about some of his more shallow assertions (e.g. Nazis were really "socialists" because the full name of the party was "National Socialist Party"), I've watched him harass Julie Hanks, and I've seen him engage in some of the worst bad faith polemics on social media (especially Twitter/X). He thrives off rage bait and he fancies himself a gatekeeper for the Church, in my opinion. If you enjoy his content, that's certainly your prerogative. I have formed my opinion over a number of years of direct observation and interaction and feel no need to revisit it in depth.

[Stargazer]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate about Jacob Hansen. I've interacted with him, I've argued with him about some of his more shallow assertions (e.g. Nazis were really "socialists" because the full name of the party was "National Socialist Party"), I've watched him harass Julie Hanks, and I've seen him engage in some of the worst bad faith polemics on social media (especially Twitter/X). He thrives off rage bait and he fancies himself a gatekeeper for the Church, in my opinion. If you enjoy his content, that's certainly your prerogative. I have formed my opinion over a number of years of direct observation and interaction and feel no need to revisit it in depth.

Fair enough.

[Calm]

20 hours ago, ttribe said:

Nazis were really "socialists" because the full name of the party was "National Socialist Party"

He was serious? That just seems so unlikely for anyone halfway educated in their actual behaviour, which was not socialist once the surface was scratched and it mostly didn’t need that even.  I don’t suppose you have a link (this might*** be a case where I will only believe it if I see it, it is so unreasonable)

I have not watched much of him and was wondering if you were over reacting…not much given your past posting, but you can be emphatic these days.  

***No, it’s definitely a case I need to see to believe, I just don’t see any reasonable reason for him to go there.

Edited December 9, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have not watched much of him and was wondering if you were over reacting

His description of Jacob Hansen seems to come from a place of personal disdain rather than reality.

People tend to not like him because he is very firm in his beliefs and calmly and rationally uses logic instead of passion and feelings in his debates.

(Just my opinion, of course.)

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

His description of Jacob Hansen seems to come from a place of personal disdain rather than reality.

I have a major concern if the socialist criticism is accurate and I don’t see why it wouldn’t be…except it’s so hard for me to believe that anyone halfway educated would hold that position.  That’s evidence they allow bias to influence their interpretations too much for me.

Edited December 9, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have a major concern if the socialist criticism is accurate and I don’t see why it wouldn’t be…except it’s so hard for me to believe that anyone halfway educated would hold that position.  That’s evidence they allow bias to influence their interpretations too much for me.

I think you are conflating socialism with modern left liberalism. Socialism is more about economic policy than moral worldview.

(But, I could be wrong 🤷🏻‍♂️)

I would hope you wouldn't summarily dismiss anything Jacob has to say because he has one view you may diverge from. Look at his stuff, I am sure you will find much more that you disagree with him about- but will find him more than "halfway educated".

Edited December 9, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

His description of Jacob Hansen seems to come from a place of personal disdain rather than reality.

People tend to not like him because he is very firm in his beliefs and calmly and rationally uses logic instead of passion and feelings in his debates.

(Just my opinion, of course.)

You suck at reading my mind.

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You suck at reading my mind.

My crystal ball has been on the fritz lately. Probably needs a new battery.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

People tend to not like him because he is very firm in his beliefs and calmly and rationally uses logic instead of passion and feelings in his debates.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Oh, and unsurprisingly the vitriolic criticism against Bro. Hansen is from the left of center members. 😳

[Calm]

17 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

think you are conflating socialism with modern left liberalism. Socialism is more about economic policy than moral worldview.

I am not conflating anything.  The Nazis called themselves Socialist, but did not pursue a socialist agenda except for a few minimal cosmetic programs to keep workers quiet.  They did not remove private ownership and they did not attempt to have greater wealth equity or equality among their citizens.  One of the first things they did was outlawed trade unions.  Some industry was taken over, but for the war effort.  The Nazis worked with the leading businesses for mutual financial benefit, even to the point of providing slave labor.

Quote

I would hope you wouldn't summarily dismiss anything Jacob has to say because he has one view you may diverge from.

Where did I summarily dismiss him?  I expressed concern over his bias influencing interpretation to such a great extent.  Same concern I have with everyone including myself, but raised to the red alert status.

I agree that he is more than halfway educated***…that is why I am concerned if he actually holds this position, which I am not assuming is true based on ttribe’s word given the significance of it.  I am way too aware that miscommunication/misunderstanding occurs for the trivialist of reasons at times and never assume that stuff claimed about a person is true unless there is strong evidence for it.  For something at this level, like I said before I have to see it to believe it.  (I did say I “might” have to see it to believe it, but I quickly got to ‘no, I have to see it to believe’ and should have edited my comment to indicate that before now).  However, the possibility that ttribe is accurate leads me to be extra cautious to Hansen now where I was only cautious with him before since I wasn’t familiar with his background (education, level of expertise in church subjects), etc.  I am naturally prone to view those I only know for podcasting with skepticism no matter what positions they hold as I have seen too many just pick and choose what supports their biases, choose guests and promote ideas to draw views, etc.

***If you read what I wrote with attention, you would have seen I was not saying all those who believed Nazis were socialists were halfway educated, but that no one who was more than halfway educated about the Nazis and what they did should believe that.  I know there are educated people who do, but I see them as allowing their personal agendas to over influence interpretation of history.  If socialism is really that bad, one shouldn’t need to rely on attaching Nazis to it.  There are better governments to use for that purpose. Using Nazis to attack socialism is just being lazy, imo and makes it look like they don’t have actual evidence to support that position. (I don’t know if Hansen was doing this or just bought into the claims of someone who was.)

It’s more understandable if someone is not educated in Nazi history to assume their name indicates their politics.  I am not someone who believes everyone must be educated in Nazi behaviour or there is something wrong with them.  Such education is ideal as understand the Holocaust and other major human tragedies can help us avoid them in the future as well as give us greater understanding of how we got where we are today, but this education level is not always possible for those with too heavy a load to do personal research and who have had at times to rely on crappy history teachers if they have even had the opportunity to study history at all in school.

Edited December 9, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Oh, and unsurprisingly the vitriolic criticism against Bro. Hansen is from the left of center members. 😳

And unsurprisingly those that venerate him are right of center members.

Bulverism, the true equalizer of all viewpoints. “You believe that because you are XXXXXXX” It dulls the intellect, places reason below speculative psychology, and C.S. Lewis thought it could doom the world.

[ZealouslyStriving]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And unsurprisingly those that venerate him are right of center members.

Bulverism, the true equalizer of all viewpoints. “You believe that because you are XXXXXXX” It dulls the intellect, places reason below speculative psychology, and C.S. Lewis thought it could doom the world.

So, how about this?

- The people who like him stop saying he is the best debater to ever live in the history of Mormonism.

- The people who don't like him stop saying that he "engage(s) in some of the worst bad faith polemics on social media (especially Twitter/X). He thrives off rage bait and he fancies himself a gatekeeper for the Church..."