Will the church ever abandon the belief that the Book of Abraham is historical scripture?

[Ouagadougou]

Hello all! 😀

In reading the following from the church's "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham" essay, I began to wonder if the church will ever change its position that it "embraces the book of Abraham as scripture."  

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

"Abraham, who was born in about 2000  B.C., was the father of Isaac and the grandfather of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. (See BibleDictionary, “chronology,” 635–36.)"

https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

If Abraham lived ~2000 B.C., then the belief that copies of copies of copies (that survived for over 2,000 years) of his (Abraham's) writings ended up in a random funerary text with NO mention of Abraham's name is difficult for most people to accept.  Add onto that the fact that "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham," and it is a huge mental/spiritual leap to "embrace it as scripture," IMO.  

I believe the RDLS (Community of Christ) treats the Book of Abraham as "speculative writing," but not as historical scripture.  

Do you think the church will ever change its position on the Book of Abraham in the foreseeable future?  

 

[Johnnie Cake]

Many biblical scholars consider Abraham a fictional character created when Israel returned from Babylon and began to assemble a cultural narrative. This is when they cooped the creation, flood, Moses exodus and other myths into their collective cultural narrative. 

If and that's a big if it can ever be conclusively proven that Abraham never existed then yes...the Book of Abraham would become even more problematic for the church than it already is.

The church has already begun its pivot from translation to papyri inspired catalystic inspiration.  If this pivot is accepted by mainstream members...the book will remain canonical scripture.

Edited January 21, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[rongo]

I don't think so.

Even if the Church ever did, I would still retain my belief that it is scripture.  

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

If and that's a big if it can ever be conclusively proven that Abraham never existed then yes...the Book of Abraham would become even more problematic for the church than it already is.

 

How is it possible to prove that someone never existed?  We may be able to theorize that it is improbable that certain events took place as recored, but I'm not sure how one could demonstrate that a person never existed.  That seems sort of akin to me of trying to prove to you that I've never been to Cleveland.  I haven't, but it's really impossible to prove.

[JLHPROF]

I hope not.
I'd still believe it.

[thesometimesaint]

Our Book of Abraham is consistent with many of the stories that have arisen about him.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all! 😀

In reading the following from the church's "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham" essay, I began to wonder if the church will ever change its position that it "embraces the book of Abraham as scripture."  

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

"Abraham, who was born in about 2000  B.C., was the father of Isaac and the grandfather of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. (See BibleDictionary, “chronology,” 635–36.)"

https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

If Abraham lived ~2000 B.C., then the belief that copies of copies of copies (that survived for over 2,000 years) of his (Abraham's) writings ended up in a random funerary text with NO mention of Abraham's name is difficult for most people to accept.  Add onto that the fact that "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham," and it is a huge mental/spiritual leap to "embrace it as scripture," IMO.  

I believe the RDLS (Community of Christ) treats the Book of Abraham as "speculative writing," but not as historical scripture.  

Do you think the church will ever change its position on the Book of Abraham in the foreseeable future?  

 

It cannot be proven to NOT be history.

History this remote is what you think it is.

Who was the historic Zeus? Does it matter? If the church says it is historic, it is for that community. All we have is our belief in anything.

Call it the placebo effect if you like. If it works in your life, it is true 

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited January 22, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

There is no need to abandon anything

[churchistrue]

Disavowing the idea that the BoA was translated from Egyptian on the papyri doesn't require disavowing it as historical scripture.  That's probably the direction the church will go.  Book of Mormon historicity is a much bigger issue.  It's much more recent and lot more said in it that requires evidence.  If church ever accepts BOM non-historicity, then BoA would come next. 

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

How is it possible to prove that someone never existed?  We may be able to theorize that it is improbable that certain events took place as recored, but I'm not sure how one could demonstrate that a person never existed.  That seems sort of akin to me of trying to prove to you that I've never been to Cleveland.  I haven't, but it's really impossible to prove.

Keep in mind I'm not holding my breath, but it would have to be something substantial and conclusive such as an archeological find such as a Babylon myth narrative which included a character similar to Abraham showing a non Israelite origin, like the gilgamish flood narrative that the Israelites cooped into the Noah flood myth...

Edited January 21, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

Just now, churchistrue said:

Disavowing the idea that the BoA was translated from Egyptian on the papyri doesn't require disavowing it as historical scripture.  That's probably the direction the church will go.  Book of Mormon historicity is a much bigger issue.  It's much more recent and lot more said in it that requires evidence.  If church ever accepts BOM non-historicity, then BoA would come next.

They kind of already did in the essay.  The "translation" process was revelatory, not literal.
As you say, that doesn't mean the end result isn't historically accurate.  As mfbukowski said "It cannot be proven to NOT be history."

Personally I don't care if it has zero connection to the original papyrus.  Even if all those papyrus did was open Joseph's mind to a new revelation the contents of the Book of Abraham are absolutely true.  Historicity is irrelevant.

[cinepro]

3 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Disavowing the idea that the BoA was translated from Egyptian on the papyri doesn't require disavowing it as historical scripture.  That's probably the direction the church will go.  Book of Mormon historicity is a much bigger issue.  It's much more recent and lot more said in it that requires evidence.  If church ever accepts BOM non-historicity, then BoA would come next. 

The Book of Abraham has a much smaller presence in the Church and its message (how many people who meet with the Missionaries and get baptized could even tell you what the Book of Abraham is?), so it would be much easier to transition away from it. 

If you look at the way the Book of Abraham is used in conference talks, you'll see that it is rarely forcefully quoted.  It's more often used for "turns of phrase" or alluded to. 

http://scriptures.byu.edu/

From that site, you can see that it's quoted less than 30% as often as the Book of Moses, and less than the Joseph Smith History and Articles of Faith. 

 

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The Book of Abraham has a much smaller presence in the Church and its message (how many people who meet with the Missionaries and get baptized could even tell you what the Book of Abraham is?), so it would be much easier to transition away from it.

If you look at the way the Book of Abraham is used in conference talks, you'll see that it is rarely forcefully quoted.  It's more often used for "turns of phrase" or alluded to.

http://scriptures.byu.edu/

From that site, you can see that it's quoted less than 30% as often as the Book of Moses, and less than the Joseph Smith History and Articles of Faith.

 

I would guess that the reason for that might be twofold:

1. The Book of Abraham speaks specifically to temple things, and the Church doesn't like to go any deeper into temple teachings publicly than to speak of eternal families.
2. The doctrines in the Book of Abraham are among the more "strange and peculiar" (ie, non-standard Christian) and that makes for bad PR.

As you point out this contrasts with the Book of Mormon which has a doctrinal focus much more on first principles, Christ, and the atonement.  A much more beneficial tool for missionary work.  But eventually we have to progress to the meat.

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all! 😀

In reading the following from the church's "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham" essay, I began to wonder if the church will ever change its position that it "embraces the book of Abraham as scripture."  

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

"Abraham, who was born in about 2000  B.C., was the father of Isaac and the grandfather of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. (See BibleDictionary, “chronology,” 635–36.)"

https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

If Abraham lived ~2000 B.C., then the belief that copies of copies of copies (that survived for over 2,000 years) of his (Abraham's) writings ended up in a random funerary text with NO mention of Abraham's name is difficult for most people to accept.  Add onto that the fact that "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham," and it is a huge mental/spiritual leap to "embrace it as scripture," IMO.  

I believe the RDLS (Community of Christ) treats the Book of Abraham as "speculative writing," but not as historical scripture.  

Do you think the church will ever change its position on the Book of Abraham in the foreseeable future?  

 

NO!

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all! 😀

In reading the following from the church's "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham" essay, I began to wonder if the church will ever change its position that it "embraces the book of Abraham as scripture."  

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

"Abraham, who was born in about 2000  B.C., was the father of Isaac and the grandfather of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. (See BibleDictionary, “chronology,” 635–36.)"

https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

If Abraham lived ~2000 B.C., then the belief that copies of copies of copies (that survived for over 2,000 years) of his (Abraham's) writings ended up in a random funerary text with NO mention of Abraham's name is difficult for most people to accept.  Add onto that the fact that "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham," and it is a huge mental/spiritual leap to "embrace it as scripture," IMO.  

I believe the RDLS (Community of Christ) treats the Book of Abraham as "speculative writing," but not as historical scripture.  

Do you think the church will ever change its position on the Book of Abraham in the foreseeable future?  

 

Shouldn't the question be worded, "Will the Church ever admit it's not true?"

[RevTestament]

To a large extent I believe the question is moot because I don't believe we have the scroll the Book of Abraham came from. The fragments we do have I believe are related to the facsimilies and while there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence to the Egyptian of the late era, I believe there are things which correspond to what Joseph said about them - enough to make one believe Joseph did see something others don't.

Edited January 21, 2017 by RevTestament

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Keep in mind I'm not holding my breath, but it would have to be something substantial and conclusive such as an archeological find such as a Babylon myth narrative which included a character similar to Abraham showing a non Israelite origin,

The main problem you have here is that Abraham was not an Israelite.  Indeed, the biblical stories place him in an era a thousand years before the Israelites appear in Canaan.  In fact, the Israelite tribes are listed in the Bible as only one set of his descendants -- which also include the Arabs, who call him Ibrahim.  As to ancient  sources mentioning such a name, we do have several:  

Ancient Eblaite Abramu, Mari Abram, Amorite A-bi-ra-am,^[1] Akkadian Abam-rama “Father is beloved”(an Ugaritic name in Akkadian transcription),[2] Ugaritic Abrm/Ibrm/A-bi-ra-mu,^[3] and Neo-Assyrian Abi-ra-mu,^[4] all reflecting Hebrew ʼAbrām (Genesis 11:26-31) and ʼAbrāhām^[5] (Genesis 17:5-36), which both mean “Father is exalted,”^[6] from ʼab “father,” and the Semitic root √RWM or √RYM “be exalted,”^[7] which is virtually the same as Hebrew ʼĀbîrām “(My) Father is exalted” (Numbers 16:1).  This reminds James Hoch of *ʼAbu-ram, a name from the Egyptian Execration Texts (Egyptian ʼAbu-l-m).^[8]

---

^[1] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24), citing AS 21:554:125 OB.

[2] J. J. Stamm, Die Akkadische Namengebung (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1939), 292.

^[3] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24), citing PTU 182; Frauke Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit, Studia Pohl 1 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 86; G. del Olmo Lete & J. Sanmartin, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 2^nd ed., 12.

^[4] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24), citing WSB 279.

^[5] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosography, §11111 (p. 24), citing Rothstein/Hänel, 156; cf. IPN 242:466; Albright, JBL, 54 (1935):193ff.; BASOR, 83 (1941):34; 88 (1942):36; Cassuto, EB(c) 1, cols. 62-63.

^[6] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24); Thomas Thompson, Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 22-36, cited in Scott Layton, Archaic Features, 22-23.  LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 600-601, Abram “exalted father,” and Abraham “Father of a multitude,” the latter a false folk etymology based on Hebrew hămōn “multitude,” P. Joüon & T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2^nd ed., with corr. (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011), §98b.

^[7] Ran Zadok, Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy, §11111 (p. 24), citing IPN 145-146; WSB 84.

^[8] Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts, 495, E47 (comparing Amorite Ḫa-mu-ra-ma).

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 like the gilgamish flood narrative that the Israelites cooped into the Noah flood myth...

The problem is that we have several distinct Mesopotamian Flood Stories of which you are unaware, aside from such stories worldwide.  Thus missing the likelihood that a worldwide phenomenon would be recalled in a variety of cultures worldwide, each in their own way.  I lay out and analyze three of the Mesopotamian Flood Stories in J. Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity, pp. 28-31, including the Sumerian, and two Akkadian Flood Stories.  Indeed, for you to adequately understand the original components of the biblical Flood Story, you need to at least read David Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament, volume 1.

[6EQUJ5]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It cannot be proven to NOT be history.

History this remote is what you think it is.

Who was the historic Zeus? Does it matter? If the church says it is historic, it is for that community. All we have is our belief in anything.

Call it the placebo effect if you like. If it works in your life, it is true 

What absolute nonsense.

Do you deny the reality of space and time? Past, present, and future?  The Book of Mormon is historical because it describes people who occupied space at a specific time.  Not because the Church says its historic.  The Church could abandon the belief tomorrow but it wouldn't change the fact that there was a Nephi.  A Moroni. A Benjamin. 

That's like saying through consensus we can change the absolute FACT that a water molecule is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom bonded together by the electromagnetic force.  Ummm.... today water is actually a combination of cesium and nitrogen.  Why?  Because I said so.  It's true for me. Nope, it means that I'm a lunatic.

Your metaphysics are awful.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all! 😀

In reading the following from the church's "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham" essay, I began to wonder if the church will ever change its position that it "embraces the book of Abraham as scripture."  

...............................................................

If Abraham lived ~2000 B.C., then the belief that copies of copies of copies (that survived for over 2,000 years) of his (Abraham's) writings ended up in a random funerary text with NO mention of Abraham's name is difficult for most people to accept.

I don't know where you obtained the polling data for "difficult for most people to accept," but your proposition is false to begin with.  The scholar writing that Gospel Topics Essay may not have made it clear to you that there is no legitimate claim that a text written by Abraham "ended up in a random funerary text."  That is an anti-Mormon claim certainly, but it just doesn't hold water, and that is not what the Essay says.  The true questions are:  Does the biblical text place Abraham at around 2,000 BC?  Yes.  Is it the official LDS claim that a story written by Abraham was translated from a physical papyrus?  Yes.  Take a look at the current title page, for example.  Do we know for certain that Jews regularly copied and recopied their holy texts over time?  Yes, for thousands of years they have done so.  Have they translated them into various languages?  Yes.  They have always done that.  Have the Jews incorporated non-Jewish symbols and language into their copying, translations, and synagogues?  Yes.  We have multi-volumed expositions of that fact.  Especially the massive 13-volume work of  Erwin Goodenough, 

Quote

 Add onto that the fact that "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham," and it is a huge mental/spiritual leap to "embrace it as scripture," IMO.

..................................................................

Mormon and non-Mormon scholars agree that the currently available fragments do not contain the Book of Abraham, but that does not mean that they simultaneously "embrace it as scripture."  That is clearly illogical and contrary to fact, and you entirely miss the point.  I lay out the facts in short compass in my "Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham" at https://www.scribd.com/document/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .  You might also want to review the comments of a Jewish Rabbi, whom I cite in my first footnote.  There is also the very recent lecture in Rome by Mormon Egyptologist John Gee, "The Book of Abraham in Historical Context," online at http://averroes2.blogspot.jp/2017/01/the-book-of-abraham-in-historical.html .

Edited January 22, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Disavowing the idea that the BoA was translated from Egyptian on the papyri doesn't require disavowing it as historical scripture.  That's probably the direction the church will go.  Book of Mormon historicity is a much bigger issue.  It's much more recent and lot more said in it that requires evidence.  If church ever accepts BOM non-historicity, then BoA would come next. 

It has already gone that way.

Quote

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translatorand translation.33 According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.34

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

What absolute nonsense.

Do you deny the reality of space and time? Past, present, and future?  The Book of Mormon is historical because it describes people who occupied space at a specific time.  Not because the Church says its historic.  The Church could abandon the belief tomorrow but it wouldn't change the fact that there was a Nephi.  A Moroni. A Benjamin. 

That's like saying through consensus we can change the absolute FACT that a water molecule is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom bonded together by the electromagnetic force.  Ummm.... today water is actually a combination of cesium and nitrogen.  Why?  Because I said so.  It's true for me. Nope, it means that I'm a lunatic.

Your metaphysics are awful.

LOL! They are worse than that- I find metaphysics mostly useless jabbering.  What you cite has nothing to do with metaphysics- it is about a useful paradigm that works in chemistry.

"The electromagnetic force"?  That is almost as good as "immaterial substance".  Just a tad simplistic I think.

How does your simplistic high school chemistry relate to string theory since you want to discuss "reality"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Quote

 

Phenomenology

Main article: String phenomenology

In addition to being an idea of considerable theoretical interest, string theory provides a framework for constructing models of real world physics that combine general relativity and particle physics. Phenomenology is the branch of theoretical physics in which physicists construct realistic models of nature from more abstract theoretical ideas. String phenomenology is the part of string theory that attempts to construct realistic or semi-realistic models based on string theory.

Partly because of theoretical and mathematical difficulties and partly because of the extremely high energies needed to test these theories experimentally, there is so far no experimental evidence that would unambiguously point to any of these models being a correct fundamental description of nature. This has led some in the community to criticize these approaches to unification and question the value of continued research on these problems.[12]

 

"Realistic models" is about the best we can get

Read Rorty's "Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature".  This is a book which defines a trend away from meta-narratives including your sacred science, viewing it as a useful paradigm which really does not help us define "reality" very well.  Susskind, the "discoverer" of black holes says we may never understand reality.  http://www.peterbyrne.info/documents/sad0711Byrn3p.pdf

Here is a scholarly article about Rorty, whose views on this question I follow.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/

Sorry, but I think this question of "reality" and how we speak about it is not quite as simple as you think it is. 

The "reality" of space and time?  Well I suppose it all depends on how deep you want to take the question.  Have a good life- I will probably not respond to you much unless you show some understanding of the real issues here- I really don't have the time, I have been through this so many times before here.   If you are actually interested in understanding what I think, which I can't imagine is the case, as you can see, I have a few posts here on this board about it all.

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

Even if it were proven conclusively that no earthly source ever has existed which spawned the text now known as The Book of Abraham, that wouldn't preclude a totally supernatural origin.  (Heck, if we're going to use lack of [possession of] an original text as a basis for abandoning scripture, we'd also have to jettison The Book of Mormon.) I don't see that happening (in either case)).  

Even if Joseph Smith dictated the entire thing while standing on his head and simultaneously rubbing his head clockwise and rubbing his tummy counterclockwise, there are still complexities and nuances for which the perceptively and curiously wise must account.  By fomenting an undue focus on the how, the Adversary gets his victims to take their eyes off of a marvelous, miraculous what.  To abandon The Book of Abraham would be to give up a rich reservoir of distinctly Mormon doctrine.  

While I don't wish to cast aspersions on my devout Protestant brothers and sisters, whose Heavenly Father is as pleased with their sincere attempts to do what they believe He asks of them as he is with mine and those of my fellow Latter-day Saints, the world doesn't need another Protestant denomination: such a denomination with a faintly Mormon flavor already exists in the body of the Community of Christ.  Conversely, the world still desperately needs prophets with their attendant gifts.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Even if it were proven conclusively that no earthly source ever has existed which spawned the text now known as The Book of Abraham, that wouldn't preclude a totally supernatural origin.  (Heck, if we're going to use lack of [possession of] an original text as a basis for abandoning scripture, we'd also have to jettison The Book of Mormon.) I don't see that happening (in either case)).  

Even if Joseph Smith dictated the entire thing while standing on his head and simultaneously rubbing his head clockwise and rubbing his tummy counterclockwise, there are still complexities and nuances for which the perceptively and curiously wise must account.  By fomenting an undue focus on the how, the Adversary gets his victims to take their eyes off of a marvelous, miraculous what.  To abandon The Book of Abraham would be to give up a rich reservoir of distinctly Mormon doctrine.  

While I don't wish to cast aspersions on my devout Protestant brothers and sisters, whose Heavenly Father is as pleased with their sincere attempts to do what they believe He asks of them as he is with mine and those of my fellow Latter-day Saints, the world doesn't need another Protestant denomination: such a denomination with a faintly Mormon flavor already exists in the body of the Community of Christ.  Conversely, the world still desperately needs prophets with their attendant gifts.

For those who do not believe in revelation there can be no answer- for those who do, there can be no question.

I wish I knew who wrote that, but it is pretty great stuff

[Freedom]

To disavow it as scripture would mean the church is not true and the leaders of the church are not guided by revelation.