The scrolls that were translated into the Book of Abraham were very large. They apparently stretched across 2 rooms. All that are left are a couple of fragments. There are allot of people trying to tear down the church these days. The evidence that is used is usually extremely superficial. For example one of the more popular things used is the DNA evidence to disprove the Book of Mormon. The real story is much, much deeper than that. The ancient America's was apparently a huge melting pot. There is physical and DNA evidence for Asians, Europeans, Hebrews and even Africans being here. The Book of Mormon itself speaks of 4 seperate civilizations. For every anti Mormon engineered evidence that causes doubt, there is also positive evidence. It is best to study the scriptures to get the stronger spiritual evidence and stay away from those who would promote doubt. doubt is a type of fear. Faith and fear cannot exist at the same time.

I have yet to see any of the critics "very reasonable claims about the Book of Abraham." You want to know how we can know the arguments/evidence and still believe it to be scripture? I know of their arguments, but I have not seen any evidence that will hold water yet! Let me give you an example of what we are really talking about. A non-Mormon, named William S. West, visited Nauvoo and saw the scrolls from which the Book of Abraham was translated and described them this way.. "the scrolls had enough material to fill a book larger than the Bible." He said.."Joseph spent many days translating the Book of Abraham, and had enough text already translated (but not published) to require hours to read", (1837 brochure about his visit to Nauvoo is cited by Peterson, 1995, p. 25) The Book of Abraham we have today can be read in about 30 minutes. Where are the other texts Joseph translated, but wasn't published? Also we find from Joseph F. Smith..who recalled "the familiar sight of 'Uncle Joseph' kneeling on the floor of the front room with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him, weighted down by rocks and books, as with intense concentration he would study a line of characters, jotting down his impressions in a little notebook as he went" [Nibley, 1968-a, pp. 17-18]. Neither of these eyewitness accounts match the Papyri fragments we now have in our possession. So obviously we do not have the two long scrolls which Joseph Smith also had in his possession. Nor do we have the notebook in which he jotted down his impressions. All we have is the portion of the Book of Abraham he translated and published. Hopefully one day these other scrolls will be found and returned, as were the fragments we now have. How can we believe this Book is scripture? Because it was translated by a Prophet of God...Later

I'm not the typical Mormon on this topic, so this answer reflects my own opinions. I don't think Joseph Smith Jr translated in the sense of the word as we use it today. Look at the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Joseph didn't consult any ancient texts; he made an inspired revision of the King James Version, adding a few new passages he received through revelation. Most "translation" of the Book of Mormon was done by looking at seer stones in a hat and not studying the ancient characters on the golden plates. The facsimiles in the Book of Abraham do seem to match known Egyptian documents (such as the hypocephalus from the book of the dead). Could these papyri has inspired Joseph to write the Book of Abraham?

Why don't you just let the evidence speak for itself? . After all the RLDS/Community of Christ is slowly and quietly de-emphasizing Joseph Smith and LDS Scripture for a reason . . . . And BTW, the RLDS never canonized the Pearl of Great. In fact, very few of the other LDS Denominations have canonized it. . Frankly, the evidence (unless you let Hugh Nibley do an irrational "Joseph Smith wasn't translating what was on the papyrus - he was receiving a supernational revelation BEYOND what was on the page!" mind frak on you) is pretty damning. ATTACHED: Images of the Book of Abraham papyri.

The critics claims do not seem to be reasonable. The materials they would use as evidence do not match in any particular the description given of the scrolls from which the Book of Abraham were translated. . The arguments and so called evidence have no bearing on the question.

This is an image of John Gee's research. From the fragments, facsimilies, and copies of characters in the 'alphabet and grammar' we are able to learn more about the papyri Joseph Smith had in his possesion. There are three different scrolls for which we have papyri fragemnts for. We know there must have been another scroll from copied chracters in the 'alphabet and grammar' - and we know this scroll is not the Abraham and Joseph scroll but for a person of a different name (name blurred in image). And we know about the disc papyrus fragment. No other evidence exists to support the claim that there were two other scrolls (Abraham Scroll and Joseph Scroll). The image sugests possible lengths of the papyri and other notes. (If anyone has a clear image of this picture I would love to have a copy!) John Gee sugests that the Abraham translation came from none of the papyri in Joseph Smiths possesion but from revelation and that the papyri had nothing to do with the text of the translation except that it was an aid for recieving the text as revelation. Either one must conclude that the papyri had nothing to do with the text of the Book of Abraham and that it was recieved by revelation, or accept that the Book of Abraham is not what it is claimed to be and is therefore a hoaux and a fraud.