Is the Book of Abraham a Problem? - Terryl Givens with Dr. Kerry Muhlestein 

Why are we relying on the philosophies of men? Why not go to a direct quote from the official church essay which states...... '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,'

The Book of Abraham one of my favorite books of scripture. I've read it over and over and it continues to enlighten me. "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

If I were a Mormon, seeing this video wouldn’t exactly inspire a lot of confidence in me

Getting a Mormon Egyptologist is just a HUGE bias. It would be a better argument if it was someone not affiliated with the church. Especially someone who doesn't work for the church, at least.

Short answer ..... Yes

100 billion buys a lot of foolishness

Channeling,revelating ...is that how we explain inconsistencies with the facts?

If the light within you is darkness how great is that darkness!!

*Cough cough* b.s. A very smart man trying very hard to validate their “prophet”. J.S. Did not make it easy for his followers 😅

The Scientific Method version of "you must have FAITH". Guess what, that isn't how science works.

It gives me great joy to see that the majority of people aren't buying into this hot liquid garbage.

How can you be a phd in Egyptology and support the Book of Abraham? To be academically honest you need outside verification. Not trying to be anti Mormon but lets be real.

7:55 Smith "channeling..." Kind of sounds occult-like. Why would he need a pagan document to receive revelation? Channeling? Like into a spirit realm???? Who or what answered Joseph??? Did he channel with a stone in a hat to get the Book of Mormon???

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

I feel like there was a lot of talking but nothing was said. The mental gymnastics here was too much....

I only wandered into this discussion while looking up my Alma Mater (BYU) info. Givens asked some amazingly insightful questions but avoided pursuing the path of reason to its logical conclusion. Muhlestein conducts an astounding theater of "intellectual" gymnastics in an attempt to avoid the only logical conclusion that Joe Smith made up his translation of the papyrus. It shouldnt surprise anyone that Givens does not raise the issue of why Carbon 14 dating places the papyrus to some 1800 years after the death of Abraham (even though JS claimed Abraham scribbled on the papyrus "by his own hands"). To believe in this "inspired book of scripture" a person must approach it with a wilful suspension of common sense and reason.

God is not the author of confusion.

Yikes, here is a fantastic example of eisegesis!

Not trying to be disrespectful but his explanation kinda makes me laugh, especially because he’s obviously a pretty intelligent man. Although he’s intelligent, he’s still suffering from confirmation bias. He will never see it for what it is because he doesn’t WANT to see it, nor do the members of the church. We can make up any story to prove ourselves right. That does NOT mean you ARE right. Only that you’ve made up a pretty creative story to fit the church’s narrative.

Question #3 there are numerous ideas about the translation of the Facsimiles/Vignettes. Again, some of these fall outside of the realm of Egyptology (e.g. evidence indicates that the Fac. translation could have been a group project (including the term “we” in Fac. 2, etc.) and thus, it’s presumptuous to assign everything to Joseph and to base much of your video on your idea that the Facs. were said or thought to be attached to the missing long scroll (even though they could have been), etc.). Some may be related to Egyptology (e.g. if Joseph re-purposed the vignettes (rather than an ancient Egyptian or etc., then the ongoing discussions of the pillars/facade, heavenly Nile or earthly, 4 sons, Shinehah, etc. could still be relevant to Egyptology--depending on what “this subject” means or which “Egyptians” (Hor, J-red, or etc.). However, there are some theories that have support, are related to Egyptology, and have little attention. These should be solved before moving on e.g.: Actual Q #3--(One of several variants of Barney’s J-red theory): Some scholars believe Chandler’s mummies were the original owners of the papyri. Thus, the “old man” is Hor, etc. You seem to agree. To some of us (less learned), it seems evidence contradicts that. What chance is there that an ancient Jewish Egyptian, Greek Egyptian, Native Egyptian, or even Christian Egyptian, etc. could have repurposed the Breathing Permit (for brevity), associated it with a Ptolemaic or later BofA, and was entombed with it (or mummified it with someone else, etc.)? What is the strongest evidence against this? Thanks again!

I cannot believe that Kerry Muhlstein says at 22:09 to 22:18 that if he could fully understand who God is that he would be disappointed because God is not that much better than him (Kerry Muhlstein). Seriously Mr. Muhlstein you would be dissapointed that you are so near perfect that you are only slightly less perfect than God who is perfect. Mr. Muhlstein must truly be amazing and awesome to be able to make a statement like that. I cannot believe that he is not in the upper echelons of the church leadership since he is so near God-like.

If a person truly believes they’re doing something but they’re not doesn’t mean they are. Yeah that’s the dissonance that is trying to be mitigated with this video. I usually really enjoy Givens but he really is undermining his intelligence in this conversation.

why don't the Prophet and Apostles come out with an official statement?..guess they are too busy dedicating shopping malls..

Every question requires a long convoluted explanation leads you to presuppose it’s not complicated then a complicated answer is given. Well I guess the Lord never said it would be easy only worth it. This valuable non-quote from the Lord could be about the mental gymnastics to understand the prophets works.

The papyri were common Egyptian funeral scrolls that were buried with every Egyptian that could afford mummification. They were created between 300-100 BC and had nothing to do with Abraham. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri

Why do people make the assumption that the facsimiles ARE related to the book of Abraham? Because it was published in the Times and Season starting in March 1, 1842 by Joseph Smith with numbered explanations that directly relate to the Book of Abraham chapters AND it's printed in every version of the Pearl of Great Price along side the Book of Abraham AND the interpretation of it, as stated by JS, is that it shows Abraham on the alter & on throne of "Pharaoh, King of Egypt." That's not an assumption that the facsimiles are connected to the BofA- JS made this claim. The church has followed along with that by keeping in in print for +100 years. And now apologists have no ground to stand on so they say, "No, you're wrong the facsimiles are explanations, not translations, and translation doesn't mean what everyone understands as translations, they are special inspiration." The problem with JS being wrong about the translation of the BofA is in how he's wrong. Egyptologists may disagree on if those characters are best expressed as "virility" or "potency" (both related to ability to produce offspring) but when JS is so far off he translates "virility" as something like "Abraham, taught Pharaoh and his court about Kolob and the celestial bodies nearest to God." He's wrong in a way that makes him out as a fanatic storyteller, a liar. He said he "translated" the text, you can see this in the March 1, 1842 Times and Seasons newspaper. To say "translate" means something different than what 99% of the population at that time would have understood is to make him an even great deceiver. He had the chance to say, "I don't know what this character is." The fact that K.M. can skirt around the fact that JS chose to number the facsimiles and related them directly to the the book of abraham AND then publish them as a part of the book of abraham is a fantastic but simply false claim. The Times and Seasons publications show JS thought they were a part of the book of abraham. In doing this, JS, wasn't wrong in a "virility/potency" way he was wrong in a way where he made up some fantastic story. That is deceptive to say "translate" and secretly change the meaning of the word as to avoid all criticism.

I am not an expert on the Book of Abraham translation, nor am I an expert on all the different discussions, both pro and against the Book of Abraham. But what I do know is, having read the BofA many times I find nothing in it which I consider evil or corrupt. Just as with the Book of Mormon, there is a lot about the Book of Abraham we can not detail by using only scientific means. This does not, however, mean that Latter-day Saints who believe in the BofA and BofM are anti-science or that we are somehow using, as some say, mental gymnastics, to believe in these books. It simply means our confirmation of the truths of these books comes in large part from the Holy Spirit as recorded in Moroni 10:3-5 in the Book of Mormon. I do not fault critics of the Church who are honest in their critiques of the BofA or BofM. I do not fault Egyptologists who have likewise found Joseph Smith’s translation of the BofA to be problematic. The reason being is that often, these people are use to finding evidence by what they can see, touch and read. It is like solving a puzzle for them and in most cases, there is nothing at all wrong with that. That is how physical science should be conducted. But when you don’t have all the pieces to the puzzle, using only scientific tools or scientific means to solve a problem can not fully answer all the questions. That is when the Holy Ghost can answer the questions which science can not. Jesus taught this to his disciples in John 14:26. Just because I don’t have an exact blueprint of how the earth was created, from the mountains to the oceans doesn’t mean I should abandon my belief in God. Just because I don’t know exactly how stars and planets came into being doesn’t mean I should throw away my belief in a supreme creator and instead assume everything simply came about by the laws of chance. Perhaps there are those who believe in their heart of hearts that spirituality doesn’t exist. As for me, I just believe differently, especially in a time like today, with social media, 24/7 news and an Internet flooded with opinions coming from every direction. There are so many voices saying, “I’m right and they’re wrong,” or “I have the truth and no one else does,” or “Don’t believe those people over there, believe me.” It is becoming more and more important to receive council and guidance from the one and only source of all truth, and that is the Holy Ghost; that still small voice which whispers truth to both our minds and our hearts.

Edited copy of a comment I tried to post on RFM 's invite to Kerry for a debate , and on Stories' Ritner interview...we'll see what happens : ). This is the reason for the questions (presumably above this). Dear RFM, and followers. I didn't know you existed until I watched some of your mormonstories interview with Ritner. Your behaviors here don't surprise me (reminiscent of some middle school bullies I once knew). But, anyway, before seeking to contend over your assumptions about the BofA, we should first establish some basics about what Dr. Ritner has to say that is relevant, and thus worth discussing. I have fewer restrictions on immature behaviors (vs Kerry, etc.) due to my choice of occupations and lack of personal restraint. So, I’m here for you, and will contact Kerry, etc. if we are able to establish anything worth discussing. I've written to Dr. Ritner and have asked some important and relevant questions. He seems to have reservations about answering. I posted them on RU-vid and sent him a link...same result there. As you know, faithful LDS are opposed to contending (especially if it's not even relevant), so I'm guessing Kerry M. probably won’t take you up on your invite for “debate” but has offered something more Christian and worthy of serious scholarship. However, it seems Sirs Robert, Dehlin, and RFM (and followers) are seeking to quibble in your house, a house you’ve built on your presumptions and "moderate." No offense or anything, but if you’re really seeking truth, then please invite your homies ; ) (Dehlin, Ritner, etc.) to a discussion in comments on a Kerry Muhlelstein RU-vid interview. If Ritner/RFM/Dehlin can answer my questions in a way that helps establish the relevance of Ritner’s claims, then I’ll contact Kerry and see if he will join a legitimate conversation about important issues. If he doesn’t wish to engage, I’ll try to get his input and etc. If you kind sirs bravely shy away from thoughtful, written conversations (which you don’t control and so will have less power to steer to darkness and irrelevance), then feel free to copy everything and we’ll continue here or on your stories. If you don’t want any conversations anywhere with a person you’ve impacted with falsehoods, and if you wish to just stay here and give yourselves pats on your backs, then at least admit to everyone that you aren’t really honest, and are what you accuse us of being. Thanks : ) Here’s the link ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dJtkwzWvBQE.html

“It’s possible he looked at the book of Abraham and gave us something completely different” gimme a break, always looking for the one in a million chance, never considering the 999,999 chances of it being a fraud. Choose wisely friends.

why will youtube delete LDS responses?

Anyone wanting some actual truth about the Book of Abraham can read "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri" by Robert Ritner...an ACTUAL Egyptologist. The Book of Abraham is most definitley the nail in the coffin of Mormonism.

I think the problem is straightforward. The Church, for decades, has referred to the Book of Abraham as a translation, without any correction or nuance, when it was not a conventional translation. But that is certainly what its members assumed...that Joseph Smith, through the gift and power of God, understood the Egyptian characters and transcribed their literal meaning in English. That assumption (which the church allowed and encouraged), rather than increased secularism or prophetic perfectionism is the source of the disappointed expectations. I say this as a believing member of the church. Even if the church responded to critics in 1913, the fact is that the vast majority of its members believed (and, I think, were affirmatively taught) that the Book of Abraham was a conventional translation of Egyptian papyri. This narrative can't be sustained, and, given the gospel topics essays, I don't think the Church is trying to sustain it any longer, whether affirmatively or tacitly. So, I've let it go, and rather than try to strain the meaning of the word "translate" and my own credibility, I just regard the Book of Abraham as an important and valuable revelation and not a conventional translation in any meaningful sense.

So all Joseph needs is the back of a shampoo bottle that’s written in a language that nobody else knows and BAM he’s got new scripture. Or “other gospel” perhaps. And it’s funny I never thought of this before but regarding the translation of the book of Abraham maybe that phrase “as long as it’s translated correctly” needs to be applied.

Wow... come on guys, this was NO Gift from god. This conversation is doublespeak worthy of Joseph Goebels. Smith was not only mistaken, he demonstrably “channeled” foolish lies. Look at he life of Smith, as an academic you need to focus on knowledge not try to distort and twist facts by saying gods message is difficult to understand.

My goal is to have BYU’s accreditation rescinded. They should not have professors like this and be able to hold themselves to the standard of academic integrity and empirical evidence. BYU is a clown college.

it seems to boil down to this. Some people want to find out the actual facts and reality of what happened.. whereas some people want to defend what they already believe.

Note the book on shelf to right of Terryl Givens at 0:58. "Mormonism for Dummies".

Some issues don't mean that much? How about the "authorship" of the Book of Abraham? How about the name Abraham is never mentioned in the document? How about the the LDS church called the BA authentic for decades. Today, the Gospel Topics Essay on the subject states members can see the BA as a translation or as written by Joseph Smith through inspiration. Smith knew nothing about Egyptology or ancient Egyptian. Muhlestein is not well respected by Egyptologists as far as his research of the Book of Abraham goes. His stance as an apologist shows bias in the controversy surrounding the document.

Hahahahahahaha *Deep breath hahahahaha

"Why is this a problem now and not 100 years ago" his answer is people used to be more OK with not understanding something?! How about the fact that the church has done everything it can to bury this knowledge for as long as they possibly could and at the last possible moment as the truth is becoming impossible to contain they halfheartedly post a biased essay, but still never bring it up in any official capacity. The Church has always and will always be focused on obscuring the truth as is clearly demonstrated in this video by a man who might have a phd, but does not care about what answers science has given him and will always return to his confirmation bias.

“So what are the most compelling arguments against his capacity as a translator?” Haha- where to start... As if he’d jeopardize his employment. The amount of hot-potatoing around “the nature of translation“ is hilarious. Now they’re giving alternative definitions of what it means to prophetically translate something.

Didn't even finish watching this hog wash.

The ancient Egyptian funerary papyrus were used as a prop to stimulate interest in the scriptural writings that Smith created. The concept of translation carries a different meaning for Smith than the customary meaning of the term. For Smith, translation refers to his ability to create scripture that includes prophesy and revelation.

I believe you're supposed to compare the facsimiles (counterfeit) to the Book of Abraham as a way to show contrast.

RFM, Dehlin, Ritner QUESTIONS and letter- I've invited them to have an open conversation here, in public, where they don't control everything, where thought can rule, rather than emotional arguments. Dear Robert, Dehlin, and RFM, thanks so much for sharing thoughts. As a scientist, I’m hoping you are willing to openly answer and discuss questions in a format that won’t be filtered by Dehlin, FAIR, RFM, etc. ...I want to know the truth about the BofA. (I hope you do, too). Many of us see the abundant evidence for the BofM and wonder how it’s possible that Joseph could have blundered (as much as Critics claim) on the BofA. I agree, you all have changed many lives. No doubt, what you are teaching helps some people feel liberated from religion, justified in doubting, relieved at falling, etc. However, you probably don’t hear the many other stories. Families have been destroyed by misleading attacks directed at those who trust that you're neutral, hate groups who prey upon weaker or newer faith, etc. Fathers find excuse to abandon their children and their faithful families; mothers, husbands, wives, weep, etc.; some stray to drugs and alcohol etc., a few even turn to suicide. John Dehlin seems (as near as I can tell) to justify his occupation through telling himself that he’s simply being honest, defending doubters, not pushing anything misleading, etc. Unlike some more solid faith-Critics, it seems you three avoid open/public conversations where readers can thoughtfully question and discuss in writing. I assume that, as a scholar, you are primarily and sincerely concerned with truth, even though you have frequently stepped out of the realm of Egyptology. Therefore, as seekers of truth, as those who care about individuals and families, we have no reason to fear an open and friendly conversation here. I hope we will learn together. : ). Thank you so much for your time. I really look forward to you sharing your wisdom with us (or me), and helping us move forward in genuine BofA scholarship. Thank you so much for your time. I really look forward to you sharing your wisdom with us (or me), and helping us move forward in genuine BofA scholarship. Note, since my questions seem to move around, I'm going to add them here, but, it will be much easier to discuss individually. QUESTIONS for Robert Ritner, RFM/Dehlin as per email and comments on RFM and Mormonstories (and for general discussion after)- LDS don’t really believe the extant JSP contain the text of the BofA. Your excellent followup translations have been added to those done previously to reconfirm what Nibley explained to us 50 years ago. Thank you. However, while Critical minds tend to be closed, many LDS are still open to the multitude of other possibilities. Most (if not all) of these other possibilities fall outside the realm of Egyptology (e.g. direct revelation prompted by the Vignettes (related to if JS really taught that the vignettes were part of the long scroll as you claim, etc. etc. etc., which is more of a Church History question) -and I’m willing to discuss your feelings on why you feel qualified to interject on those and other questions, which faithful LDS seem to know more about :)). And, much of what you say (which could possibly be relevant to your fields of study) is based on assumptions that aren’t really supported by the evidence, contradict it, or haven’t been discussed or established by you (as far as I know). So, we are wasting time quibbling if we don’t first state or resolve the basic issues, or discuss the evidence for your assumptions : QUESTION #1- as you know, eyewitnesses describe an ancient BofA source text which is no longer extant. Textual criticism, eyewitnesses, etc. also indicate that the extant KEP, and later manuscripts, are reliant upon previously translated BofA text which is no longer extant. Thus, the KEP don’t represent BofA translation from any extant papyrus. Having that evidence, and other historical information, do you feel it’s honest for Critics (e.g. RFM/.Dehlin) to continue to claim you’ve translated the source of the BofA and have found it doesn’t contain anything about Abraham? Or, how do you feel about your interview running with the title “Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 1” when you’re really only sort of translating the vignettes and etc.? (And questions on those are to follow). Question #2-- For Robert/RFM/Dehlin I’m sure you're aware that the BofA shows a detailed relationship to ancient extra-Biblical Abrahamic lore (although you may be unaware of Muslim lore, celebrated or not) and, perhaps, some Ptolemaic influence. This indicates that either: a- Smith did a lot of BofA research (much of it before Chandler came to town) and was extremely fortunate to obtain vignettes that could be related to the previously-studied ancient extra-Biblical lore (some arguably unavailable to him) and the forthcoming BofA; OR b-someone anciently had access to Abrahamic records, etc. and created a record which Smith then converted to his language (“translated”). What is the best evidence supporting the logic of theory “a” rather than “b”? Or, is there anything from Egyptology that proves “a” and that isn’t based on assumptions about revelation etc.? If we could establish a real response to the apologist claims that an ancient person created an Abrahamic text which Joseph somehow tapped into (by direct revelation, or partial from papyri, or etc.), then more of what you’re saying will be shown to be relevant and we can move on in the search for truth… : ) Thanks Question #3 there are numerous ideas about the translation of the Facsimiles/Vignettes. Again, some of these fall outside of the realm of Egyptology (e.g. evidence indicates that the Fac. translation could have been a group project (including the term “we” in Fac. 2, etc.) and thus, it’s presumptuous to assign everything to Joseph and to base much of your video on your idea that the Facs. were said or thought to be attached to the missing long scroll (even though they could have been), etc.). Some may be related to Egyptology (e.g. if Joseph re-purposed the vignettes (rather than an ancient Egyptian or etc., then the ongoing discussions of the pillars/facade, heavenly Nile or earthly, 4 sons, Shinehah, etc. could still be relevant to Egyptology--depending on what “this subject” means or which “Egyptians” (Hor, J-red, or etc.). However, there are some theories that have support, are related to Egyptology, and have little attention. These should be solved before moving on e.g.: Actual Q #3--(One of several variants of Barney’s J-red theory): Some scholars believe Chandler’s mummies were the original owners of the papyri. Thus, the “old man” is Hor, etc. You seem to agree. To some of us (less learned), it seems evidence contradicts that. What chance is there that an ancient Jewish Egyptian, Greek Egyptian, Native Egyptian, or even Christian Egyptian, etc. could have repurposed the Breathing Permit (for brevity), associated it with a Ptolemaic or later BofA, and was entombed with it (or mummified it with someone else, etc.)? What is the strongest evidence against this? the original comment is on RFM didn't make it past the moderators (so far), but is posted below (or whatever) with some corrections....

"we thought Joseph Smith should have been able to translate egyptian" ... yeah, because that's what Joseph Smith himself said. See March 1, 1842 Times and Seasons. "he didn't translate the way I preconceived, but he translated nonetheless" ... what a weird statement. I assumed when JS said, "I translated this text" that it meant "He translated this text" but in reality it's my fault that I didn't know he mean "I spiritually interpreted some other story that doesn't related at all to this text I pointed to and numbered when I said I translated it." ... okay ...

Yep. The Book of Abraham is a problem. But so is "The Book of Mormon." And as a matter of fact, the new and old testaments are problematic. My conclusion; Religion is horse biscuits. Religion of some sort seems to be an addiction to many folks. They want to believe that they'll live forever if they follow some recipe. Sorry. Death only results in an eternal rest, folks. And that's a good thing.

Such UTTER BS! When evidence fails they have to start tap-dancing around the myriad of evidence against' Joseph Smith's many failures. A tapir was a horse! LMAO!

This guy is not an archeologist. Even Jewish archeologists, ie, in 'The Bible Unearthed ', had enough scientific integrity to state categorically that there is NO archeological evidence that the Exodus actually took place.

Joseph Smith tells us exactly how he created all of his religious texts. It is in the Doctrine and Covenants section 8. 8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. 9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me. There were no golden plates, parchment of John, or actual writings of Abraham. Joseph created it all up in his mind and felt good about it because it would draw people to Christ.

HEY RU-vid STOP DELETING OUR POSTS.

The real question is why do most scholars claim Abraham was a fictional character 🤔

Sounds like you're scraping at the bottom of the barrel. The flat-out truth is that he lied about translating the book of Abraham.

Lol never gets old seeing how JS can still be defended for his bull shit lol people say anything. I'm sure they really do believe it but it does make it even more sad. But this isn't even a argument anymore. The church has already come out and admitted it

You're talking in circles....we DO know what Joseph was presenting to us...because of what he claimed it was....and it is NOT what he claimed it was (PERIOD).

1st Cor 14:33. God is not the author of confusion. This discussion sounds like a forked tongue Devil.

Ludicrous....:The Papyri opens him up to inspiration and revelation" to then what exactly? Interpret in some super-cryptogram message? These BYU professors are really laughable. How can they honestly provide an honest assessment when they have already presupposed it is a valid translation and sign an article of faith that ensures their "research" will not conflict with Church teachings. Would hate to lose funding and be deemed an apostate scholar. At the end of the day, whether the BofM or the BofA, the LDS have no need for what's "true". It all about a spiritual witnessing and praying until you are self-deceived enough to know it's true. Ambiguity is baked-into the faith as part of the "spiritual journey". Bottom line: The BofA is not the composition of Abraham, not historical, and, in fact, the simple product of JS's creative--inspired, if you will--exegesis. This conclusion can be made with confidence. It is far from a wild speculation. In contrast it must be noted that much of the BYU scholarship that has been written defending the antiquity of the book (and Abrahamic authorship or its historicity), is weak and speculative if not essentially flawed by lack of precision in reading texts and by methodological looseness. This is without dispute. Well at least the BofA transmission's "vehicle for inspiration" provided a supportive justification for those wonderful LDS tenants of Polygamy and denying the priesthood to Blacks. (Slow Golf Clap). What do your "modern day Prophets" have to say on the matter? Why differ to BYU lackeys with tainted scholarship? Why can't they ask the Lord why the translation of the BOA by Egyptologists does not match what Joseph said they did? Has revelation ceased? This obvious problem has been the catalyst for people leaving the church in droves and you'd think it deserves an answer by the leaders of the church instead of various differing opinions by LDS scholars with absolutely no authority to speak for the church.

LdS apologetics is a sad enterprise.

Mormon guy : I reject the true .

Posting here since RFM MIA In my Defense Pt 3 of Question 1- SIMPLIFICATION & REVIEW Correct if wrong : ) You Critics dismiss those who accept the BofA as scripture, and you malign their defenders because: In spite of contrary evidence, you believe: A- all BofA sources are accessible and have nothing about Abraham and are incorrect. B- scripture must describe History as you see it. You support A with these assumptions previously shown to be false or tenuous: A-1: the KEP Parrish, etc. BofA manuscripts couldn’t be retrofit attempts because no LDS attempted such things (only Champollion, etc), and no one besides Joseph and Chandler (and Anthon and his learned?) would try to translate anyway, even though they clearly did. A-2: Joseph couldn’t translate a missing papyrus, even if he had one, because he created Cowdery’s Valuable Discovery and Phelp’s plea for help and mistranslated them, with his handwriting looking remarkably like theirs. You support A (all sources are accessible and translated) with these assumptions to be shown false or tenuous here, in Pt 3 of Q1: A-3: a-that the post October 1835 Parrish (or etc) BofA manuscript represents original translation by Joseph’s dictation directly from heaven; b-it’s not a retrofit attempt; c-and it’s aligned with accessible Hor BP characters, thus showing Joseph translated directly from the BP. A-4: Webster didn't do it like that. You support A (all sources are accessible) with these assumptions to be discussed with my replies to the other 2 questions: A-5: contra evidence, the catalyst theory doesn’t work because a-Joseph never did anything like that, b-and he couldn’t be wrong about what he thought or said, c-and translation is what we say it is, not those involved. A-6: contra evidence, the Facsimiles prove Joseph couldn’t translate, so “case is closed” and minds are closed, regardless of anything else: the Facs. were “translated” as we insist they were: a-no group or “we” project ever happened, b-no intellectual studying it out (with or without JST-like Clarke references), c-no reapplication (ancient or modern), no J-red, no C-red, or JS or peer views allowed; d-no aesthetic changes in Fac 3 wording, e-no scribal errors, etc. etc. Nothing outside your narrative can possibly be true... : ) Assumption B- (scripture must describe History as you see it), to be discussed when it comes up.. continued in replies

The 3 questions I posted today (wherever they end up, they begin with Questions, Question #2, and Question #3), are related to an email I sent to Robert Ritner and a comment I posted on an RFM post attacking Kerry and trying to encourage a fight (first comment today beginning with Edited copy of a comment I tried to post on RFM 's... ...Dear Robert, thanks so much for sharing thoughts. I will post a copy of this email in the comments on the youtube version of Pt1 of your stories podcasts, found here (removed)... As a scientist, I’m hoping you are willing to openly answer and discuss questions in a format that won’t be filtered by Dehlin, FAIR, RFM, etc. If you respond (in comments) on the Fair video...I want to know the truth about the BofA. (I hope you do, too). Many of us see the abundant evidence for the BofM and wonder how it’s possible that Joseph could have blundered (as much as Critics claim) on the BofA. I agree, you and Dehlin have changed many lives. No doubt, what you are teaching helps some people feel liberated from religion, or justified in doubting, etc. However, you probably don’t hear the stories I hear. Many families have been destroyed by Dehlin and hate groups. Fathers find excuse to abandon children and faithful families; mothers, husbands, wives, weep, etc.; some stray to drugs and alcohol etc., a few even turn to suicide. John Dehlin seems (as near as I can tell from his words, his Texan friends, etc.) to justify his occupation through telling himself that he’s simply being honest, defending doubters, not pushing anything misleading, etc. Unlike some more solid faith-Critics (e.g. Vogel, Benson, etc) JD avoids open/public conversations where readers can thoughtfully question and discuss in writing. I assume that, as a scholar, you are primarily and sincerely concerned with truth, even though you have frequently stepped out of the realm of Egyptology. Therefore, as seekers of truth, as those who care about individuals and families, you and I have no reason to fear an open conversation, and I hope we will learn together. : ). I’ll understand if you don’t wish to answer my questions. And, if you choose to answer in email (rather than public comments), I hope you’ll grant permission for me to post your answers with my questions so we, the average people, can discuss your insights. Thank you so much for your time. I really look forward to you sharing your wisdom with us (or me), and helping us move forward in genuine BofA scholarship.

It is a problem! There is no evidence. We need to be scientific here. I cannot accept him as a prophet any more if it is not based on a real text!

They might as well be discussing the Lord of the Rings as though it were history.

Absolute horse hockey. Lying to the choir.

Sometimes it is easier to believe none of it is true then to try to do all these mental gymnastics

This is the best they have?

Question #2-- For Robert/RFM/Dehlin I’m sure you're aware that the BofA shows a detailed relationship to ancient extra-Biblical Abrahamic lore (although you may be unaware of Muslim lore, celebrated or not) and, perhaps, some Ptolemaic influence. This indicates that either: a- Smith did a lot of BofA research (much of it before Chandler came to town) and was extremely fortunate to obtain vignettes that could be related to the previously-studied ancient extra-Biblical lore (some arguably unavailable to him) and the forthcoming BofA; OR b-someone anciently had access to Abrahamic records, etc. and created a record which Smith then converted to his language (“translated”). What is the best evidence supporting the logic of theory “a” rather than “b”? Or, is there anything from Egyptology that proves “a” and that isn’t based on assumptions about revelation etc.? If we could establish a real response to the apologist claims that an ancient person created an Abrahamic text which Joseph somehow tapped into (by direct revelation, or partial from papyri, or etc.), then more of what you’re saying will be shown to be relevant and we can move on in the search for truth… : ) Thanks

He's obviously trying to secure his job and funding.

Good talk always good to learn more and question more.

Well I’m just glad we cleared that up!

I don't care about Mormon truth claims but the Book of Abraham is a cool text

Your guest, an employee of BYU, has a strong bias to keep the Mormon narrative alive despite all the evidence. He’s speaking as a TMB, rather than an intelligent professor. Any other academic at a different university would be appalled at his justification of the “translation!” He definitely earns/retains his BYU salary in this interview!

Muhlestein seems very uncomfortable.

Read Mathew 8;12

Mormons gotta Morm

20:19, what happened? Hugh Nibley

PHD?

“The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.” Joseph Smith Jr.

When the professors concluded that "these are not the droids you are looking for" it delivered a blow to the critical thinking of LDS listeners, enabling them to go back to sleep.

I once saw a clown pull a bouquet of flowers from his sleeve. Was the clown a genius florist? No, he was just being a clever clown. I never thought to over examine the experience because it was clear as to what the clown did. Perhaps Joe Smith was a simple clown doing what clowns do - fool people.

"Is the Book of Abraham a Problem?" *NO* (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no"). Not for long anyway. If it is a problem, then one soon ceases to be a Mormon and the problem goes away. If it is not a problem then the question goes away.

I’ll answer the last question. Lack of spirit of prophecy.

Well, one thing I know for sure is I have no idea how God chooses to work. Thus I would never pretend that I know the answers as to what, and how any form.of revelation occurred almost 200 years ago. This wasn't the first time God showed himself and it certainly won't be the last. Are prophets fallible? Yes, read the scriptures, it's all over the place. Gives me hope... which, in this crazy world, makes me happy.

Respectfully to Mormons, Muslims, Christians and religious Jews: please learn that "A thinking personal GOD" does not exist. It is an erroneous concept of our Infinite Source. Any religious book that is said to contain "the Word of God" was written by men who have the wrong concept of God. ERC is GOD, not a thinking being but our Infinite Source. Humans should become Ercians, mainly to honor the True God and avoid worshiping false “talking””thinking” gods (there is no “Word of God” ever thought or spoken) and then, to become self-directed independent thinkers. I founded the Ercian Religion, mainly because I consider my concept of God the True One, offering sound logical proofs to back that point, no “faith” required here. It debunks the “This is the Word of God” myth, so no religion can truly say they have it. The book "Ercian Testament, the Teachings of Proligion and Ercian Philosophy" available at Amazon explains what the Ercian Religion is all about. Most importantly, it gives logical proofs that show the True God cannot possibly be a "thinking" "talking" personal god. Good and bad people exist in all religions and in lay society. Proligion is the mission name of the Ercian Religion to unite ALL good people religious or secular in order to affect good world change. Self-directed! For independent thinkers! For more information, visit ercian.org

Terryl Givens it seems is leaving out the crucial element of genuine faith. The Lord is at the helm of His church and would not have, and will not allow “made up” scripture to be disseminated among His church members. Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, if you believe that he made this stuff up, then you also believe he was false himself……You can’t have it both ways. Academia without the spirit is not enough to achieve a fullness of understanding.

What does translation mean?? Give me a break. Mormon apologetics do more harm than good. So ridiculous 🤣

Thank you for your insights and the study you have made available to us. Very interesting

This guy is full of cap

This is excellent. Sad there's so many hateful comments but no surprise.

"... this isn't a last ditch effort to salvage a crumbling paradigm..." Actually, that is exactly what it is, which is why this video exists.

"This is an age of pessimism. Ours is a mission of faith. To my brethren and sisters everywhere, I call upon you to reaffirm your faith, to move this work forward across the world. You can make it stronger by the manner in which you live. Let the gospel be your sword and your shield. Each of us is a part of the greatest cause on earth. Its doctrine came of revelation. Its priesthood came of divine bestowal. Another witness has been added to its testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is literally the little stone of Daniel’s dream which was “cut out of the mountain without hands [to] roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth” (D&C 65:2)." President Gordon B. Hinckley

Who cares?

You two better hope that your God doesn't care about truth. What deceptive nonsense.

The scriptures were never meant as a historical review. Joseph Smith was a wonderful man and let's not forget humane. Jesus said we can walk on water...i know we can I just haven't learned how to. Yet. .....haha. But I keep studying prayi g and pondering. People like him just makes me stronger. Spirit of the law. Letter if the law. As for me im Spirit.

He’s an amazing instructor. Love his sharing of all he knows