1. The ad hoc nature of apologetics. Before the discovery and translation of the papyri, no one ever postulated that the translation was anything but literal. JS was clear on the matter. Only after it was clearly proven that the translation could not have been literal did apologists begin to suggest that there was some other kind of translation going on. (You also see this with the LGT. No one thought to question the hemispheric model until it became clear that the evidence did not support it.)


2. A shift in the attitude of the Church towards its history. Before the discovery and translation of the papyri, many of the Brethren (most notably, perhaps, N. Eldon Tanner) sincerely expected them to vindicate JS, and were eager to get them translated. Since the BoA debacle, the Brethren appear to have learned that any "new" discoveries with regard to Church history or doctrine are more likely to harm than help the Church. You see this in BoM archaeology, and also in the Hoffman affair, as church leaders obviously had reason to believe that there were documents in existence that were very unflattering to JS. The rise of "faithful history" is likely a direct result of lessons learned from the BoA incident. (Philo describes this shift from an attitude of "Let's find out!" to one of "Don't look!" around the 1960s in one of his essays.)


3. The surprising ability of the faithful to "shelve" doubts. The fact is, there are no good apologetic answers to the BoA problem. Different apologists favor different theories, but in the end all rely on faith. They are forced to admit that we don't know why JS's translation doesn't correspond with the papyri--perhaps we'll find out in the next life. Many believers who know about the BoA problem are somehow able to put this doubt on the shelf and await "further light and knowledge." The problem with this approach is that anything in the world can be true, if only you are willing to shelve your doubts. You can believe the earth is flat if you want. You don't need to explain why it looks round from space or why people seem to be able to circumnavigate the globe in every direction. Just put those doubts on the shelf for now, and trust that it will all make sense in the future.


4. Widespread ignorance of Church history among the members. When I first learned of the BoA problem, I was somewhat surprised that I had never encountered it before. The same could be said for the BoM issues, and things like MMM, Hoffman, JS's polygamy/polyandry, Kinderhook plates, etc. While I wouldn't expect the Church to openly teach non-faith-promoting things, I was nevertheless surprised at how much I had never heard of, despite my nearly perfect attendence at church meetings, seminary, MTC, BYU religion classes, etc. throughout my youth. It's very possible that I never would have found out about any of these things without the Internet. That fact alone sheds some light on the Church's ability to thrive in spite of all these problems.

The eight Egyptologists and Semitists who responded were unanimous in their scathing verdict: "Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end," came the report from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which added that "five minutes study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture;"4 ". . . difficult to deal seriously with Smith's impudent fraud," wrote another from Oxford, England. "Smith has turned the Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham."5 From Chicago, ". . . very clearly demonstrates that he (Joseph Smith) was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian Writing and civilization."6 And from London, ". . . the attempts to guess a meaning are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations."7 - By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri Part 1 (Chapters 1-4) By Charles M. Larson

"Joseph Smith took some characters from the papyri and translated them by the gift and power of God. He did not do so in a conventional manner. The translation was supernatural and beyond the understanding of modern Egyptologists. We can see with our own eyes how a few characters were used to produce whole sentences of the lost story of Abraham"

Further support for Joseph's interpretation of several elements in Facs. 1 comes from Daniel Peterson's article in the Jan. 1994 Ensign,

Ancient texts indicate that the idolatrous gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, and Korash, described in the book of Abraham (Abr. 1:6, 13, 17; facsimile 1, figs. 5-8), truly were worshipped in the ancient world, despite the fact that the Bible makes no mention of them. http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_...

On the Names of the Four Canopic Jars in Facsimile 1 - by Kerry A. Shirts

A Note of Explanation:

Critics have said the names of these figures are not Egyptian and therefore not authentic.

This article takes a closer look.

We grant the critics a point in noting the four names of the four canopics under the lion couch are not necessarily Egyptian names. But they are names that are found in the ancient world, namely Egyptian combined with ancient Syro-Canaanitish elements, and that is the point. This is not just gibberish. Abraham is pointing out the ancient Egyptian customs to a non-Egyptian audience of his in the Book of Abraham. http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail...

"Critics have long attempted to make a case against the book of Abraham. They argue that some ancient texts do not support the book. They point to the fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri that we now possess and claim that since the contents of these papyri bear little obvious relationship to the book of Abraham, the book is a fraud; but Hugh Nibley has made an exhaustive study of these claims and has shown that the papyri we now have were probably not the ones from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham." http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dl...

We also get all these wild excuses as to how the Breathings text couldn`t have possibily been the source for the BoA translation, but not one single LDS apologetic even acknolwedges the many reasons to believe it was. Here is a list provided by Metcalfe:

1. Facsimile 1 is the opening vignette in the Breathing Permit of HУДr.
2. Facsimile 3 is the closing vignette in the Breathing Permit of HУДr. (The HУДr papyrus fragment for Fac. 3 is not extant. Still, the Fac. 3 woodcut preserves the identity of the deceasedт€”HУДrт€”confirming that it too belongs to HУДr's Breathing Permit.)
3. The BoAbr identifies Facsimile 1 (the opening vignette in HУДr's Breathing Permit) as an illustration placed at the "commencement" (Abr. 1:12) or "beginning" (Abr. 1:14) of patriarch Abraham's record.
4. Vignette Facsimile 3 (from the Breathing Permit of HУДr), according to Smith, also illustrates scenes from Abraham's life.
5. In keeping with the BoAbr claim that Facsimile 1 opened the record, all extant dictated BoAbr manuscripts (MS 1a [fldr. 2], MS 1b [fldr. 3], and MS 2 [fldr. 1]) contain authentic hieratic copied sequentially from the contiguous portion of the Breathing Permit of HУДr only. (There are two minor exceptions to sequence, but those characters too originate from HУДr's Breathing Permit. Invented, non-authentic Egyptian characters also appear on the manuscripts at points where the papyrus fragment has a lacuna.)
6. All authentic Egyptian characters in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts and the bound Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language were copied from the Breathing Permit of HУДr.
7. Aside from hypocephalus Facsimile 2 (the original of which is no longer extant), HУДr's Breathing Permit is the only papyrus that is associated with Joseph Smith's BoAbrт€”an association that is attested to repeatedly in the BoAbr text and its antecedent manuscripts.

Point #5 is the true kicker, and to explain exactly how this worked, here is a photo of a KEP manuscript to the right.

The Prophet Joseph himself has supplied us with the most conclusive evidence that the manuscript today identified as the Book of Breathings, J.S. Papyri X and XI, was not in his opinion the source of the Book of Abraham. For he has furnished a clear and specific description of the latter: 'The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is (1) beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and (2) a small part red, ink or paint, (3) in perfect preservation.'...

Since Joseph Smith actually possessed quite a number of perfectly preserved, beautifully written Egyptian manuscripts adorned with rubrics [red characters], there is no reason to doubt that he was describing such a document as the source of 'the record of Abraham and Joseph.' And there can be no doubt whatever that the manuscript he was describing was and is an entirely different one from that badly written, poorly preserved little text, entirely devoid of rubrics, which is today identified as the Book of Breathings. One cannot insist too strongly on this point, since it is precisely the endlessly repeated claim that the Book of Breathings has been 'identified as the very source of the Book of Abraham' on which the critics of Joseph Smith have rested their whole case...." Hugh W. Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975, pp. 2-3).

1. This statement didn’t derive from “the Prophet.” It comes from Oliver Cowdery’s passing description.
2. Nibley doesn’t understand that Cowdery describes the entire collection consisting of two different records (Abraham’s record and the other from Joseph)
3. Nibley doesn’t acknowledge that among the papyri that were rediscovered in 1967, rubrics do appear on fragments IV and VIII.

The characters are not always associated with a discrete paragraph. It is especially evident with Williams' Ms. #2.

The final two characters at the bottom of the first page are not clearly associated with the text. They appear to have been placed entirely at random in relationship to the text. They are not aligned with a paragraph break, nor the beginning of a sentence, nor even a specific line.

In several cases in Williams' Ms. #2, the characters appear to be placed with much uncertainty -- as though the scribe didn't have any idea what their specific relationship was to the English text in the body of the document.

Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.

Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.

Label for Osiris (Fig. 1 of Facsimile 3): Recitation by Osiris, Foremost of the Westerners, Lord of Abydos(?), the great god forever and ever(?).

Label for Isis (Fig. 2 of Facsimile 3): Isis the great, the god’s mother.

Label for Maat (Fig. 4 of Facsimile 3): Maat, mistress of the gods.

Label for Hor (Fig. 5 of Facsimile 3): The Osiris Hor, justified forever.

Label for Anubis (Fig. 6 of Facsimile 3): Recitation by Anubis, who makes protection(?), foremost of the embalming booth

Invocation: O gods of the necropolis, gods of the caverns, gods of the south, north, west, and east, grant salvation to the Osiris Hor, the justified, born by Taikhibit.

Smith misunderstood “Pharaoh” as a personal name (cf. Abraham 1:25), and the name above fig. 2 is unquestionably that of the female Isis. Osiris (fig. 1) is certainly not “Abraham,” nor is it possible that the altar of Osiris (fig. 3) “signifies Abraham.” Maat (fig. 4) is not a male “prince,” Hor (fig. 5) is not a “waiter,” nor is Anubis (fig. 6) a “slave” (because of his dark skin). Such interpretations are uninspired fantasies and are defended only with the forfeiture of scholarly judgment and credibility.