–

[Anonymous]

–

[Anonymous]

There are several threads on the Book of Abraham (BoA) on the site, I probably started a few myself. Rather than risk reinventing the wheel I’ll toss up a link to some of the longer threads that can be used as a reference:

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=501” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=501

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2105” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2105

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4823” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4823

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5252” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5252

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4613” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4613

I watched the video, it does a fairly good job of presenting the issues.

As far as the red ink thing… the ensign article was from 1988, perhaps the source material wasn’t as readily available or well organized back then. The article also mentions that the Book of Breathings papyrus had no red ink, they could still be technically correct if the papyri with the red ink pertained to a book other than the Book of Breathings. Still the red ink argument has always been used to suggest that the BoA may have come from a non-extant source. The argument was: there are several accounts that the papyri originally contained writings in red and black ink, the recovered fragments didn’t contain the red ink, therefore there are lost fragments.

I don’t doubt there are lost fragments but the images clearly show the red ink.

The BoA was one of the issues that was near and dear to me during my faith crisis (FC). In fact I remember asking my bishop why the BoA was still in the scriptures when I first started feeling things out. 😳

[Anonymous]

1) The link to the Joseph Smith Papers pictures shows one image.

2) The link to the explanation of the BofA was written in 1988. There have been over 25 years of updated information from the Church and historians about it since then. Frankly, I’d rather talk about current explanations than one that was written in one of the church’s magazines 26 years ago.

3) The video is by someone who is a self-avowed anti-Mormon – and who is intent on claiming that a non-literal view of the BofM proves Joseph Smith was a fraud and that the LDS Church is a sham – and that Mormons are idiots if they believe anything Joseph taught – even though the factual explanation in the video is pretty good. When he strays from facts into conclusions . . . We don’t link to those kinds of sites / presentations here, even as we don’t shy away from talking about the issues themselves, so I deleted the link.

I would suggest everyone to read the threads we already have in our archives to which nibbler linked. This is one topic where I think it is important to look at what participants have said over time here. Feel free to read them and comment on one or more. Commenting will bring any or all of them to the top of our active discussion list.

[Anonymous]

–

[Anonymous]

It’s cool. Patience is common here.

Here is a link to something from a 2000 student manual. It still is over a decade old, but it has some interesting statements that distance the BofM from a literal translation of Abraham’s actual writing:

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

There is a lot more that is more recent, but this one was the first link on lds.org (after the link to the actual scriptural source) when I searched for “Book of Abraham”.

[Author]

Posts