Book of Abraham Real?

[ScubaDownUnder]

Hi guys,

I am new to this forum for one reason bringing me here. I had a christian friend show me this video about the orgins of the lost book of abraham.

The Lost Book of Abraham video - Video Clips

I have recently been talkin to him about doing a chaple tour to meet our missionaries. but he asked me to watch this video first. I know my first thought was "great some more anti-mormon stuff." I have to be honest after watching the video it made me do some research on ancient egyptian gods and goddeses. It shows how the original Papyri's that Joseph Smith said he translated were directly from Abraham while he was in Egypt, was found in a New York museum in 1967 and our church was able to obtain the Papyri from the museum to do their own investigations. Our church hired some world leading egyptoligists to read the egyptian words and it all came out to be an old egyptian funeral notice or obituary. the main point they stated that not only did Joseph not interperate it correctly but he drew a human head on the man who is sacrificing Abraham. That man really has the head of an ardvark and is the Egyptian God Anubis who oversees the mummification and burial process. And the picture is Anubis mummifying the egyptian man who died. Also the sword in Josephs picture is never to be found in ancient egyptian pictures of burials. Have any of you seen this info or the orginal scrolls that are torn in certain spots that would lead someone to draw in pictures? Any comments would be appreciated, I would also recommened watching the video if this doesn't make sense. There are several videos to make it easier to download and stream.

[Mahonri]

The funeral text is only a portion of what Joseph Smith had.

The Book of Abraham is revelation from God, no matter where it came from.

And that's the way it is.

M

[a-train]

72Languages.com - Ancient Language Research

-a-train

[Dale]

No. Joseph Smith did not correctly translate the facimilies. They appear to be something like if an Ancient Semite were to adapt them as illustration's for the Abrahamic story. This does not mean that no Egyptology support's aspect's of what Joseph Smith said. Kerry Shirt's Mormonism Researched website get's into the way's Egyptology support's the Book of Abraham.

I have seen the film several time's. And one of the expert's Robert Ritner is full of it on one point. He said the papyrus was two short to contain a second text. Some Egyptian papyri do have other text's on them. John Gee answered this point. The FAIR Wiki has a Book of Abraham FAQ. The link to FAIR's wiki is on it's main page. Restoration Bookstore Home Page

Some of the figure's do have a human head not just the restoration critic's want to put on it. I have learned not to trust non-LDS Egyptologists on the Book of Abraham completely. They tend to ignore what scholarly evidences out of Egyptology that exist's for the Book of Abraham. They just cry wrong, and never confess to anything Joseph Smith got right. I learned to trust more LDS Egyptologist's like John Gee than run to only non-LDS one's.

Actually the knife was seen in the 1840's before the restoration. And they have found similar knife illustration's on other papyri. It's rare so some critic's jump the gun in saying that restoration was bad. Being an Egyptologist doesn't mean they are as smart as they claim. A lot of scientists reject the Book of Genisis, but that doesn't stop Evangelical's from running to creationist science. Imagine the problem's for scripture if one could only run to unbelievers and never Book of Genisis believers.

The use of the Book of Breathing's in translation is under dispute. Not everybody feel's the Kirtland paper's were Joseph Smith's working paper's in translation. They were not clearly done while certain men were working for Joseph smith as scribe's. But may have been a later project. So the papyrus found in 1967 may not be the source of the Book of Abraham at all, but the missing second text which existed contrary to certain critic's erroneous conclusion's.

Some people feel the papyrus was merely a catalyst to get an inspired story about Abraham.

I read By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus by Charle's Larson. Contrary to what he say's in chapter 11 he has not refuted LDS intellectual approach to the papyrus. The Missing payrus, and Catalyst Revelation idea's are alive and well. Kerry Shirt's did two DVD's showing his book was horrible. The Living Hope Ministry Folk's might think he has the Book of Abraham beat, but he does not. I ran and got my copy to refresh my memory.

I really refer to FAIR and FAIR Wiki on the Book of Abraham issue. They responded in depth to that film when it came out in a review. I like the Book of Abraham even after watching the film several time's. I just don't feel good about the critic's in the film. I don't know of any critic's basic concern about the restoration that has not been responded to. One that Larson should be ashamed of is his restoration of the Lion couch figure with a certain part of the male anatomy. He's been shown by Michael Rhode's to be wrong in his restoration.

---------

I had to correct myself. Larson's erroneous restoration was based on some erroneous idea's some other Egyptologist's gave. The figure in facimile 1 would be nude i guess if the restoration was corecct. I had to look it up in my copy of FARMS Studies In The Book of Abraham series. The Hor Book of Breathings A Translation and Commentary by Michael R. Rhodes.

[Elphaba]

I have learned not to trust non-LDS Egyptologists on the Book of Abraham completely. They tend to ignore what scholarly evidences out of Egyptology that exist's for the Book of Abraham. They just cry wrong, and never confess to anything Joseph Smith got right. I learned to trust more LDS Egyptologist's like John Gee than run to only non-LDS one's.

Hi Dale,

Since you're familiar with Shirts' work, and also because I've seen you at MADD:p, I assume you're familiar with Robert Ritner's criticism of Gee. If so, what do you think of Ritner and his comments re: the BoA.

My question goes to anyone else who has any knowledge of Gee's or Ritner's comments.

Thanks,

Elphaba

Note: Robert Ritner is currently Professor of Egyptology at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (at least the last I heard. He may have left since then). He was once Gee's professor and is critical of Gee's conclusions. E.

[scdoyle]

Try going here.

Mormanity - A Mormon Blog: All Lies? My Experience with the Book of Abraham

[NateHowe]

Perpetuating anti-LDS sentiments by calling into question documents like the Book of Abraham demonstrates an incomplete understanding of the process of revelation.

The real question is this: Is Joseph Smith a prophet of God? If so, that which he spoke and wrote in the name of the Lord is of value to the children of God. We learn of his prophetic calling by reading, pondering, and praying about the Book of Mormon, which is the first written fruit of his prophetic work.

It is true, as is the Book of Abraham. We can cast all scripture as of dubious origin, but it does not profit us. Rather, we should follow that which is revealed from Heaven.

[Snow]

Hi guys,

I am new to this forum for one reason bringing me here. I had a christian friend show me this video about the orgins of the lost book of abraham.

The Lost Book of Abraham video - Video Clips

I have recently been talkin to him about doing a chaple tour to meet our missionaries. but he asked me to watch this video first. I know my first thought was "great some more anti-mormon stuff." I have to be honest after watching the video it made me do some research on ancient egyptian gods and goddeses. It shows how the original Papyri's that Joseph Smith said he translated were directly from Abraham while he was in Egypt, was found in a New York museum in 1967 and our church was able to obtain the Papyri from the museum to do their own investigations. Our church hired some world leading egyptoligists to read the egyptian words and it all came out to be an old egyptian funeral notice or obituary. the main point they stated that not only did Joseph not interperate it correctly but he drew a human head on the man who is sacrificing Abraham. That man really has the head of an ardvark and is the Egyptian God Anubis who oversees the mummification and burial process. And the picture is Anubis mummifying the egyptian man who died. Also the sword in Josephs picture is never to be found in ancient egyptian pictures of burials. Have any of you seen this info or the orginal scrolls that are torn in certain spots that would lead someone to draw in pictures? Any comments would be appreciated, I would also recommened watching the video if this doesn't make sense. There are several videos to make it easier to download and stream.

Egads - do you expect us to take seriously anything produced by professional, anti-Mormon attack groups?

Even if the do make a few worthy points, I won't on principle mess about with such bigots. There are plenty of legitimates to debate without the likes of them.

[rameumptom]

The papyri we currently have are known as the sen-sen manuscript from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The papyri dates to the 2nd century AD. There are issues that anti-Mormons always seem to miss on their videos/articles concerning the BoA, however.

First, there is strong evidence of missing papyri. Second, Joseph's method of "translation" is not like regular translations. When he "translated" the gold plates, the plates remained closed while he peered into the Urim and Thummim or seer stone. His "translation" of the Bible includes many passages that are not found directly in any ancient Biblical text (Book of Moses, Melchizedek, Joseph, etc). His translations, IOW, were more of a revelation that revealed lost truths and enhanced the texts available. In fact, D&C tells us of one fragment from the apostle John which was hidden under a rock and that Joseph "translated" even though he didn't have it available. These items (plates, Bible, papyri, etc) seem to have been a catalyst for revelation, whether they contained the original item or not is immaterial.

Now, internally, we have some Abrahamic lore that was not available to Joseph Smith, but is strong evidence it is real. Abraham being sacrificed is actually an early Muslim tradition that was not available in the USA in Joseph's day. Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians is mentioned very briefly by Josephus, and is easy to miss (and where would Joseph get Josephus in the back woods?). I recommend Nibley's Abraham in Egypt for an indepth look. Abraham's description of celestial organization is amazing for his day (or Joseph Smith's), as it shows the structure we do have in the universe. Remember that galaxies were not discovered until 80 years after Joseph Smith's death, but it shows a celestial hierarchy that was not known in 1836. For several shorter scholarly articles, try the following: FAIR Topical Guide: Book of Abraham

[rameumptom]

Hi Dale,

Since you're familiar with Shirts' work, and also because I've seen you at MADD:p, I assume you're familiar with Robert Ritner's criticism of Gee. If so, what do you think of Ritner and his comments re: the BoA.

My question goes to anyone else who has any knowledge of Gee's or Ritner's comments.

Thanks,

Elphaba

Note: Robert Ritner is currently Professor of Egyptology at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (at least the last I heard. He may have left since then). He was once Gee's professor and is critical of Gee's conclusions. E.

I don't agree with all of Gee's conclusions. However, I believe Ritner uses sloppy research. He basically states that it is the sen-sen, and therefore can't be true. He has not done any research into the ancient lore that is found in the internal context. He has not considered Joseph's method of "translation", but only treated it as a wrong, normal translation. It's as if he was a blind man feeling an elephant's trunk and stating, "an elephant is like a snake or a rope", and then walking away feeling he's dealt entirely with the issue. He hasn't. He has taken a bit of knowledge and used it on a much larger subject, thus distorting or ignoring the major portions.

[Dale]

I only briefly explored some of Robert Ritner's criticism's of John Gee. I have heard his comments on the DVD. And i have ran into criticism's of what he said. But i have not watched the DVD lately and only remember a snippet of what he said. I have the film in a shoe box of Anti-Mormon DVD film's i collect.

I actually myself don't agree with John Gee entirely. I just disagree with Robert Ritner comment's on the DVD more. I am more interested in the Brian Gauglid's and Brent Metcalfe's. Brent Metcalfe i understand is planning two future volume's on the Book of Abraham issues. One is think is a set of critical essay's. The other would be an expensive scholarly study of the Kirtland Egyptian paper's. I really don't expect the argument's on either side to advance much until FARMs scholar's has a chance to respond to those future publication's.

[Elphaba]

I don't agree with all of Gee's conclusions. However, I believe Ritner uses sloppy research.

I admit I am not well-versed enough in the BoA controversy to say for certain what is or is not an issue.

However, I have followed it enough to know that Professor Ritner, in the academic world of Egyptology, has an excellent reputation. Usually the only place I hear the "sloppy" accusation is with regard to the BoA studies.

The following is an excerpt from Professor Ritner's CV:

Robert K. Ritner

Associate Professor of Egyptology

Robert K. Ritner is currently Professor of Egyptology at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and was from 1991-1996 the first Marilyn M. Simpson Assistant Professor of Egyptology at Yale University. Dr. Ritner specializes in Roman, Hellenistic, Late and Third Intermediate Period (Libyan and Nubian) Egypt and is the author of the book The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, and over 100 publications on Egyptian religion, magic, medicine, language and literature, as well as social and political history. He has lectured extensively on each of these topics throughout the United States, Europe and Egypt. In association with The Field Museum of Chicago, Dr. Ritner was the academic advisor to two recent British Museum exhibits “Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth,” and “Eternal Egypt,” and he has served as consultant and lecturer for the travelling Cairo Museum exhibit “Quest for Immortality: Treasures of Ancient Egypt.”

I bring this up because I believe people dismiss Professor Ritner too easily. I am not saying his conclusions prove anything one way or the other; however, I don't believe they can be as easily dismissed as Gee, et al, believe they can.

He has not considered Joseph's method of "translation", but only treated it as a wrong, normal translation.

Why would you expect him to do anything else?

He is not LDS. He is an Egyptologist, and he does not believe in supernatural translations. He translated what he had in front of him, which was clearly the funereal services for Hor. So when you write he "only treated it as a 'wrong, normal translation,'" that is exactly what it was.

I recognize the possibility that it may have been even more than that, but no one has been able to prove that, and to expect Dr. Ritner to have proved that is, IMO, outrageous. He translated the pappryi word for word, exactly as written. What else would you have him do?

He has taken a bit of knowledge and used it on a much larger subject, thus distorting or ignoring the major portions. He has not considered Joseph's method of "translation", but only treated it as a wrong, normal translation.

Again, I do not understand your criticism. What portions did he distort? He translated the document exactly as it was written. No one disputes this as far as I know.

And, again, why should he consider Joseph's method of "translation"? We don't even know what that was! What are you proposing it was, and how would you expect a non-LDS Egyptologist, an expert in the field, put aside all of his training, and consider translating it using a supernatural method? This is just ludicrous to me.

I know I sound like one of the critics of the BoA controversy, but I am not. I do not know where I stand on it. I, too, am waiting for Brent Metcalfe's work, as I consider him to be more educated about the BoA than anyone else. I also do not consider Gee to be informed much at all, speaking of sloppy work, though I know he seems to be FARMS wonder boy when it comes to the BoA.

Hopefully there will be answers that come from cooperation, and not silly rivalries.

Elphaba

[Elgama]

I don't think it matters whether or not its correct, historically accurate or where it came from - I know Joseph Smith was a prophet and those that have followed have been prophets because thats what God has to say - so what I do know is its something that God feels is valuable for me to know and will assist me in my eternal progression. If it is a worthless document revelation would have removed it by now.

-Charley

[Still_Small_Voice]

I also agree with what NateHowe has already said.

After examining the Book of Abraham I believe it to be truth because of the teachings contained in it.

I don't believe Joseph Smith translated any ancient manuscript the way a normal scholar would. When one attempts to understand scripture without the Holy Spirit we see what happens. Look at the hundreds of Christian denominations around the world that all interpret the Bible according to their understanding.

[Dale]

Robert Ritner feel's we have all the papyrus Joseph smith used in translation. He is not open to a lost portion of the papyrus as some are. So he feel's the Book of Breathing's which was found in 1967 was the source of the Book of Abraham. I feel John Gee's response to him on that was very good. He had a technical argument that's repeated in Fair Wiki's Book of Abraham FAQ.

I do not generally like some of John Gee's argument's. I think FARM's is to softcore on the Book of Abraham papyrus issue. His small guide got hit with some criticism's and he is yet to respond. I think if FARM's want's to be helpful on the issue they need not to let critic's walk all over their people.

I think Brian Hauglid will be able to give Brent Metcalfe some stiff competition. He gave a FAIR talk on his research, but they never put his talk online. In the MADB board Pundit's section some of Brent Metcalfe's and Brian Hauglid's discussion is online to read.

But FARM's tend's not to give these guy's space unless something important is published by the critic's. They tend to ignore little critic's and sometime's they have big critic's. They won't ignore Brent Metcalfe's big stuff. I suspect a future FARMs Review of Book's will treat his future volume's at some point.

I see some good Egyptology support for aspect's Joseph Smith's facimilie explanation's. I would be interested in Robert Ritner's rebuttal on that. I was suprised that the Lost Book of Abraham film never attempted to rebut such evidence.

I am also not a huge Hugh Nibley fan on the Book of Abraham issue. I agree with him when i can, but where i think his position weak i say so. But i am not an Ed Ashment, or Jerald and Sandra Tanner fan either. I treat my critic's and defender's of the Book of Abraham equally.

[sixpacktr]

When it is all said and done, it doesn't matter what one critic for or against the book has to say. The ONLY WAY to prove it's authenticity is thru the spirit. Just like the BOM. The spirit will tell us whether or not the BoA is true and inspired. So why do we go about trying to 'prove' things true?

I understand if those not of our faith try and discard it. What Elgama and SSV said is true: either you read it and know it is of God, or you don't. It is that simple...

[prisonchaplain]

Perpetuating anti-LDS sentiments by calling into question documents like the Book of Abraham demonstrates an incomplete understanding of the process of revelation.

The real question is this: Is Joseph Smith a prophet of God? If so, that which he spoke and wrote in the name of the Lord is of value to the children of God. We learn of his prophetic calling by reading, pondering, and praying about the Book of Mormon, which is the first written fruit of his prophetic work.

It is true, as is the Book of Abraham. We can cast all scripture as of dubious origin, but it does not profit us. Rather, we should follow that which is revealed from Heaven.

While I would concede that critics bare the burden of proof, I am hesitant to completely dismiss them. To give you an example from the Bible, there is much debate about the longer ending to Mark 16, in the King James Version of the Bible. Archeology has done us the favor of find hundreds of manuscripts dating back to the 200s--and none of them have this longer ending. Only manuscripts from the Middle Ages onward do. The problem is so substantial that most modern translations either do not include the longer ending, or they set it off with a notation explaining the doubts surrounding this passage.

It would be easy to say, "Well...it's in my KJV, and my grandfather believed it, and my father believed it, and I believe it!" However, if I am going to be honest about anything, it is what truly constitutes God's Word. My solution has been to commend the passage, but to include the concerns about it. Further, any teaching I derive from the passage would need to be backed up by other passages.

We are, after all, worshippers of the most high God, not bibiolaters.

[JonboySquarepants]

What about people of other faiths who KNOW without a shadow of a doubt that their faith is true? What about people who are against the church who KNOW that in their hearts that the lds church isn't true? these other people believe their god, or the spirit is telling them these things, right? what does their 'knowing' get them?

[Elphaba]

To Charley, SSV, Dale and Six,

I do not dismiss your opinions regarding Joseph's writing the BoA. As an atheist, I have no idea how he did it, and therefore cannot dismiss your beliefs. In my opinion, your explanations make more as much sense to me than does that of a literal translation, if the Book of Abraham is, indeed, truth.

I do believe a literal translation has been shown to be the funereal documents of Hor. That is why I am so insistent that it is unfair to criticise Ritner, as he is an expert in Egyptology, and to expect him to use his expertise in a supernatural setting is completely out of line.

Joseph had already demonstrated his translation abilities prior to BoA. As a non-believer, however, I have no idea whether this ability provided real conclusions os not.

However, Joseph's ability is beyond my understanding, and I do keep that possibility open. But what is clear to me is that he had a incredible talent at "translation" that I know I can't explain. To believers, it appears to be yet another proof of Joseph's gifts, and I do not dismiss that.

Last, I know, without a doubt, Joseph firmly believed he was a translator. As the words came to him, he knew he was a conduit for God, and that belief was as real to him as it is to all true believers today.

People who lose their testimonies often point to Joseph as a con man. While I understand this, if they were to read his diaries, they would unerstand his heart was always invested in the survival of the Church. This included his translations.

Elphaba

[Snow]

I know I sound like one of the critics of the BoA controversy, but I am not. I do not know where I stand on it. I, too, am waiting for Brent Metcalfe's work, as I consider him to be more educated about the BoA than anyone else. I also do not consider Gee to be informed much at all, speaking of sloppy work, though I know he seems to be FARMS wonder boy when it comes to the BoA.

Hopefully there will be answers that come from cooperation, and not silly rivalries.

Elphaba

Would that be Brent Metcalfe, the web page designer and technical writing editor - ex-lds who runs a dissident website re Mormonism and who once hired Tom Murphy to write a hit piece on the Book of Mormon) vs John Gee, Ph.D in Egyptology from Yale University, the William "Bill Gay Assistant Research Professor of Egyptology at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, BYU, where he is the series editor for Studies in the Book of Abraham (three books to date), member of the of the editorial board of the Eastern Christian Texts series, and sits on the board of directors for the Aziz S. Atiya Fund for Coptic Studies at the University of Utah?

Is the lds-dissident web designer also more knowledgeable than John A. Tvedtnes (M.A. in Linguistics and M.A. in Middle East Studies (Hebrew), University of Utah), senior resident scholar with the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University; having taught at the University of Utah and at the Brigham Young University Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies?

Or Brian M. Hauglid (Ph.D., University of Utah), associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, co-editor for Studies in the Book of Abraham, a member of the editorial board of the Eastern Christian Texts series, and co-compiler and co-editor of Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham?

Or Michael D. Rhodes (M.S. in physics, University of New Mexico), graduate work in Egyptology at Johns Hopkins University, the Freie University Berlin, and Oxford University and in archaeology at the University of Utah; Associate Research Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University?

[acglass]

I appreciate the spiritual testimonies of those who wrote short paragraphs earlier towards the teachings found in the Book of Abraham.

I have been a silent observer of the BoA controversy for quite some time and find it very likely that there was in existence more to the papyri then we have today. Their locations have not been tracked perfectly from the hands of Joseph the prophet down to when they were rediscovered but what we have today does not match the complete descriptions of what was in the young church's possession 150 years ago.

Source:

Criticisms of the Book of Abraham

Reference 35 - 46

[rameumptom]

I admit I am not well-versed enough in the BoA controversy to say for certain what is or is not an issue.

However, I have followed it enough to know that Professor Ritner, in the academic world of Egyptology, has an excellent reputation. Usually the only place I hear the "sloppy" accusation is with regard to the BoA studies.

Elphaba

I'm aware of Ritner's qualifications, and I respect him for such. But being an Egyptologist, and being a Book of Abraham expert are two separate issues, though somewhat related. It is on the same level as a purported archaeologist using DNA research to claim the Book of Mormon is false. While archaeologists can use DNA effectively for some issues, when not used properly, one gets skewed results.

Ritner was correct in some of his statements regarding the Book of Abraham. But instead of doing a critical analysis, based upon all the facts available, or from an attempt at non-biased research, he was intent from the beginning to "prove" it false.

Sadly, with his experience, he could have done a balanced approach, looking at more than just the quick glance at the extant papyri as he did. He ignored other issues that are always and conveniently ignored by most critics of the Book of Abraham: such as the internal text and how it compares to Egyptian thought, or how it ties/doesn't tie into ancient traditions. His intent was to quickly throw a rock at the Book of Abraham, rather than give it its due course and consideration.

Ritner isn't known for sloppy results elsewhere, because there are too many other experts out there that would eat his lunch. Still, there are few areas so controversial as that of archaeological interpretation, whether in Egypt, Israel, or elsewhere. You can read such controversies in almost any of the professional journals, or in lay magazines, such as BAR.

"Experts" in archaeology are continually arguing over interpretation, not just in the Mormon realm.

The Mayan language was once thought to be perfectly pictorial, and never would be translated, and it took decades for the younger crowd to change the status quo established by Thompson and others in the establishment.

Experts argue over whether the Messiah scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions a "pierced Messiah" or whether the Messiah is piercing others.

Experts argue over whether King David was historical or not.

Experts have incessantly argued over whether Clovis man was the earliest (and sometimes argued as the only) ancestor of Native Americans.

These are just a few examples of what goes on in archaeology. Ritner should be aware of this, and how interpretation of evidence is very dependent upon many factors in archaeology. Instead, he decided to narrowly describe one point, which conveniently ignored several factors regarding the Book of Abraham.

THAT'S why I say he was sloppy in his research paper.

Now, have others been sloppy? Of course. This includes LDS "experts" as well. Which is why we need to look at overall facts, and not just a narrowly defined set that skews the results.

[Elphaba]

Would that be Brent Metcalfe, the web page designer and technical writing editor - ex-lds who runs a dissident website re Mormonism and who once hired Tom Murphy to write a hit piece on the Book of Mormon) vs John Gee, Ph.D in Egyptology from Yale University, the William "Bill Gay Assistant Research Professor of Egyptology at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, BYU, where he is the series editor for Studies in the Book of Abraham (three books to date), member of the of the editorial board of the Eastern Christian Texts series, and sits on the board of directors for the Aziz S. Atiya Fund for Coptic Studies at the University of Utah?

Is the lds-dissident web designer also more knowledgeable than John A. Tvedtnes (M.A. in Linguistics and M.A. in Middle East Studies (Hebrew), University of Utah), senior resident scholar with the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University; having taught at the University of Utah and at the Brigham Young University Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies?

Or Brian M. Hauglid (Ph.D., University of Utah), associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, co-editor for Studies in the Book of Abraham, a member of the editorial board of the Eastern Christian Texts series, and co-compiler and co-editor of Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham?

Or Michael D. Rhodes (M.S. in physics, University of New Mexico), graduate work in Egyptology at Johns Hopkins University, the Freie University Berlin, and Oxford University and in archaeology at the University of Utah; Associate Research Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University?

Yes, that would be him.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

I've known Brent Metcalfe for a lot of years. He and I were both on Professor William Hamblin's Morm-Ant email listserv almost 20 years ago. Brent can be a nice guy, but he does seek to discredit the Church.

His desires to attack the Church began a long time ago, when he found out that some of his ancestors were married into polygamous marriages after the initial 1890 manifesto, and then were caught up (IIRC) in the second Manifesto.

Still, most of us LDS do not require perfect prophets, only inspired ones, and so such events do not phase us much.

Brent was caught up in quite a scandal himself. He worked for a few years for Mark Hofmann, who was famous for finding early LDS documents, many of which cast a strange light on the Church (including the Salamander letter, and a blessing from Joseph Smith to JSIII promising he would be the next prophet). These letters were forged by Hofmann, in order to make a buck and to discredit the Church. When some were getting suspicious, he made bombs and killed a few people before getting caught. I believe that Brent (who at the time worked for Wordperfect) was fined for using/making explosive devices, but was not fully aware of the deceit of Hofmann.

I just think that if he could make a mistake on a very close friend like Hofmann, he can just as easily be mistaken about his view on Mormonism. Still, in many ways he has mellowed some over the years, and can be quite friendly and engaging. He does hold one of the rare high quality photos of the KEP, which is what he's supposedly writing on right now. I'm hoping he'll make it a useful scholarly book, and not just another attack LDS book, as some of his other books have been.

[Snow]

Yes, that would be him.

Elphaba

I'd wager that your opinion that the web page designer knows more about the BoA than than the LDS scholars and Egyptologists has more to do with his dissident views on The Church of Jesus Christ than his knowledge about Abraham.... if history is any guide.