View source for Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Book of Abraham

{{FairMormon}}  
{{H1
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Book of Abraham
|H=Response to MormonThink page "The Book of Abraham"
|T=[[../|MormonThink]]
|A=Anonymous
|<=[[../The First Vision|The First Vision]]
|>=[[../The Kinderhook Plates|The Kinderhook Plates]]
}}
{{ChartMormonThinkTheBookOfAbraham}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Book of Abraham
|H=Response to claims made on MormonThink page "The Book of Abraham"
|S=
|L1=Response to claim: "LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham"
|L2=Response to claim: "isn't it somewhat disturbing that Joseph would say that this pagan god with his exposed penis is our Heavenly Father?"
|L3=Response to claim: "Facsimile 3...This particular scene corresponds to Chapter 125 of the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead"
|L4=Response to claim: "But when it became obvious that the results were going to be painfully uncomfortable for the Church, work became very slow"
|L5=Response to claim: "one of the sections of papyrus was clearly the Egyptian writing from which Smith claimed to 'translate' the Book of Abraham"
|L6=Response to claim: "Smith had obviously commissioned an artist to 'fill in' the missing details according to Smith's speculation"
|L7=Response to claim: "Below is a modern reconstruction of what the missing pieces likely contained, based on contents of similar funeral documents"
|L8=Response to claim: "The Book of Abraham supports the concept of polygamy as Abraham took another wife as directed by the Lord"
|L9=Response to claim: "This is the only scriptural reference that we know of where God instructs someone to lie"
|L10=Response to claim: "If God would instruct Abraham to lie about his wives then it seems plausible that God could tell Joseph to lie about his wives as well"
|L11=Response to claim: "The Book of Abraham also introduced the first and only scriptural basis for denying the priesthood to Blacks"
|L12=Response to claim: "It described Pharaoh and the Egyptians as descendants of Ham and Canaan"
|L13=Response to claim: "perhaps it would not have been so prominently practiced by the members if there was no Book of Abraham to support the practice"
|L14=Response to claim: "The two current most prominent Egyptologists on each side of the BOA issue are LDS Egyptologist Michael Rhodes and nonLDS Egyptologist Robert Ritner"
|L15=Response to claim: "John Gee...He has written many articles for FARMS. He was a student of Egyptology under Robert Ritner"
|L16=Response to claim: "Stuart Ferguson: LDS archaeologist that spent 20 years on a quest to discover some archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon"
|L17=Response to claim: "they needed to renew their subscriptions so they wouldn't miss any of the cliff-hanging Abrahamic adventures in Egypt"
|L18=Response to claim: "Apostle Jeffrey Holland was asked why the translation of the Book of Abraham by Joseph Smith doesn't match what Egyptologists say it means"
}}
</onlyinclude>

==Response to claim: "LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=since the original Papyri have been examined by both LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists and both groups have indicated clearly that the scrolls are funerary texts that have nothing to do with Abraham or anything mentioned in the LDS scripture
}}
{{misinformation|There were no "scrolls" recovered, only fragments of the original scrolls. Not all of the original papyri was recovered. What was recovered were a number of fragments, including the original of Facsimile #1. The originals for Facsimile's #2 and #3 were not recovered. The recovered fragments have nothing to do with Abraham-a fact which was noted in the official Church magazine, the ''Improvement Era'' in January 1968.
}}

==Response to claim: "isn't it somewhat disturbing that Joseph would say that this pagan god with his exposed penis is our Heavenly Father?"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Of particular note is Fig 7 (bottom right shown upside down). Joseph said it represents God sitting upon his throne. Egyptologists say that this is the god "Min." Min is an "ithyphallic god," that is, a sexually aroused male deity. His erect penis is clearly shown. It's interesting to note that in some earlier editions of the BOA the church erased the penis so it wouldn't look pornographic. It has since been restored in our current versions. But isn't it somewhat disturbing that Joseph would say that this pagan god with his exposed penis is our Heavenly Father? Note, even LDS apologists admit that this figure, with the erect penis, is the god Min
}}
{{propaganda|This wasn't a big deal to the Egyptians. It is a point of mockery used by critics because they know that it offends 21st century sensibilities regarding how we portray God.
}}
{{:Question: If modern Egyptologists say that this is a representation of Min, and Min is a “pagan” God, how could Joseph Smith say that it represents God sitting on his throne?}}
{{:Question: Is the representation of Min actually Egyptian "pornography"?}}
{{:Question: Who is this Egyptian god "Min"?}}

==Response to claim: "Facsimile 3...This particular scene corresponds to Chapter 125 of the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Facsimile 3...This particular scene corresponds to Chapter 125 of the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. According to Egyptologists, this scene depicts the deceased (Hôr) successfully completing his afterlife journey and entering into the presence of Osiris.
}}
{{information|This is correct.
}}

==Response to claim: "But when it became obvious that the results were going to be painfully uncomfortable for the Church, work became very slow"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=In 1967, the Museum presented the papyri as a gift to the LDS Church. It was time for Evans' challenge to be taken up by Mormon critics.
The Church itself did some of the investigative work in comparing the results of modern studies in Egyptology applied to the papyri to the claims Joseph Smith had made for his work on the Book of Abraham. But when it became obvious that the results were going to be painfully uncomfortable for the Church, work became very slow. Outside researchers eventually obtained adequate copies of the material and began publishing their own results.
}}
{{disinformation|The Church published the finding that the recovered papyri fragments were from the Book of Breathings in the ''Improvement Era'' in 1968. The critics make it sound as if the Church attempted to hide this information.
}}
{{:Question: Was the Church forthright in identifying the rediscovered papyrus prior to their examination by non-LDS Egyptologists?}}
{{:Source:Improvement Era:January 1968:Often the funerary texts contained passages from the "Book of the Dead," a book that was to assist in the safe passage of the dead person into the spirit world}}
{{:Question: What did the Church announce in 1968 when the Joseph Smith papyri fragments were discovered?}}
{{:Question: How long did the Church know about the papyri before they published information about them?}}

==Response to claim: "one of the sections of papyrus was clearly the Egyptian writing from which Smith claimed to 'translate' the Book of Abraham"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=one of the sections of papyrus was clearly the Egyptian writing from which Smith claimed to "translate" the Book of Abraham. There were still handwritten copies of the original translation work which showed the individual Egyptian figures down the left margin of a page, with the English translation right next to it. The handwriting on these copies was by Smith's regular scribes who helped him in his work. These Egyptian figures are clearly seen in a section of one of the recovered papyrus sections, all in exactly the same order that they appear on the handwritten "translation" pages.
}}
{{misinformation|The critics are referring to the documents known as the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers." There is no evidence that these documents were produced before or during the translation of the Book of Abraham. The evidence indicates that after the Book of Abraham was translated, that this may have been an attempt to "reverse engineer" the translation by matching Egyptian characters to the Book of Abraham text.
}}
{{:Question: What criticisms are associated with the Kirtland Egyptian Papers?}}
{{:Source:Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham:Gospel Topics:Some evidence suggests that Joseph studied the characters on the Egyptian papyri and attempted to learn the Egyptian language}}
{{:Question: What are the Kirtland Egyptian Papers?}}
{{:Question: What is the provenance of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers?}}
{{:Question: What is the publication history of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers?}}

==Response to claim: "Smith had obviously commissioned an artist to 'fill in' the missing details according to Smith's speculation"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=The original that Smith had used had pieces missing, including portions of the picture in Facsimile 1. Smith had obviously commissioned an artist to "fill in" the missing details according to Smith's speculation of what would have been in the missing sections.
}}
{{misinformation|The missing sections were filled in prior to their publication, however, it is not known ''who'' decided how to "restore" these missing sections. It may have been Joseph Smith, or it may have been the engraver, Ruben Hedlock. The critics cannot simply assert the Joseph Smith "obviously" had someone complete this according to his "speculation."
}}
{{:Question: How were the missing portions of the Joseph Smith Papyri facsimiles restored?}}
{{:Question: What portions of the image were missing from Facsimile 1?}}
{{:Question: Was the head of the priest in Facsimile 1 incorrectly restored?}}
{{:Question: When was the scroll containing Facsimile 1 damaged?}}
{{:Question: Were missing portions of Facsimile 2 incorrectly restored?}}

==Response to claim: "Below is a modern reconstruction of what the missing pieces likely contained, based on contents of similar funeral documents"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Below is a modern reconstruction of what the missing pieces likely contained, based on contents of similar funeral documents....It should be noted that not all nonMormon Egyptologists agree that there should be a second bird in the middle of the facsimile. Dr. Lanny Bell supports the idea that the figure on the table is indeed holding up two hands. However, no nonMormon Egyptologists believe Anubis (the priest as identified by Joseph) was holding a knife or that he had a man's head instead of a Jackal's head.
}}
{{disinformation|The Charles Larson restoration has a number of inaccuracies.
|provenance=Charles M. Larson, ''By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri Paperback'' (1992)
}}
{{:Question: Does Facsimile 1 show a hand? Or does it show the wing of a second bird?}}
{{:Source:Lanny Bell:the Mormon Book of Abraham:the questionable traces above the head of the Osiris figure are actually the remains of his right hand}}
{{:Question: Should the restoration of Facsimile 1 include a phallus?}}
{{:Source:Lanny Bell:there would not be enough available space to restore the hand of Anubis, the erect phallus of the Osiris, and the body and wings of Isis}}
{{:Question: Was the original head of the priest in Facsimile 1 actually the jackal head of Anubis?}}
{{:Question: Was the priest depicted in Facsimile 1 holding a knife or some other object?}}

==Response to claim: "The Book of Abraham supports the concept of polygamy as Abraham took another wife as directed by the Lord"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=The Book of Abraham supports the concept of polygamy as Abraham took another wife as directed by the Lord. 
}}
{{disinformation|The Book of Abraham does not discuss Abraham's practice of polygamy. It does not talk of him taking "another wife" or lying about it.
}}

==Response to claim: "This is the only scriptural reference that we know of where God instructs someone to lie"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Perhaps what's even more significant is that God actually instructs Abraham to lie about it. God tells Abraham that he must lie to the Egyptians and tell them that his wife is really his sister so they wouldn't take her from him (Abraham 2:22-25). This is the only scriptural reference that we know of where God instructs someone to lie. This is important because Joseph lied to his congregations and to the public about his involvement in polygamy. 
}}
{{disinformation|This is not the only scriptural reference where God instructs someone to lie. Other examples of God instructing others to hide the truth include:
* Moses regarding "borrowing treasure from the Egyptians" ({{s||Exodus|12|35-36}})
* Egyptian midwives lying about Hebrew children ({{s||Exodus|1|15-22}})
* God to Samuel to avoid Saul ({{s|1|Samuel|16|1–2}}):
<blockquote>
1 And the Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Beth-lehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.
2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the Lord said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord.
</blockquote>
}}
{{:Question: Why would God tell Abraham to lie about his wife Sarah?}}

==Response to claim: "If God would instruct Abraham to lie about his wives then it seems plausible that God could tell Joseph to lie about his wives as well"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=If God would instruct Abraham to lie about his wives then it seems plausible that God could tell Joseph to lie about his wives as well.
}}
{{disinformation|The Book of Abraham says nothing about God instructing Abraham to "lie about his wives."
}}

==Response to claim: "The Book of Abraham also introduced the first and only scriptural basis for denying the priesthood to Blacks"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=The Book of Abraham also introduced the first and only scriptural basis for denying the priesthood to Blacks, the Church's official position until 1978. 
}}
{{misinformation| the use of this scripture to justify the ban was very late. Latter-day Saint attitudes on this point generally echoed those of contemporaries: “With very little effort one can duplicate the Mormon arguments to the most specific detail from these contemporary non-Mormon sources,” and this includes the use of biblical proof texts. Lester E. Bush Jr., “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8/1 (Spring 1973): 15–16; see also 26–27. The use of uniquely LDS scripture to justify the ban dates from B. H. Roberts, The Contributor (1885), 6:296–7 (Bush, “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine,” 34–35; Bush also notes a possible earlier allusion to this idea in 1880 by Erastus Snow in Journal of Discourses, 21:370). Bush asks, “Why wasn’t the Pearl of Great Price invoked earlier on this matter? Most probably there was no need. The notion that the Negroes were descended from Cain and Ham was initially common enough knowledge that no ‘proof’ or corroboration of this connection had been necessary” (“Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine,” 36). Following Roberts’ work, an explanation based on the Pearl of Great Price was used extensively.
}}
{{:Question: Do the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence?}}

==Response to claim: "It described Pharaoh and the Egyptians as descendants of Ham and Canaan"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=It described Pharaoh and the Egyptians as descendants of Ham and Canaan (the progenitors of the Negro race), and under the curse of Canaan and disqualified from the priesthood (Abraham 1:21-22, 26-27).
}}
{{disinformation|The author is mixing up "Cain" and "Canaan," however, there is no relationship between the two. The Canaanites were ''not'' descendants of Cain, despite the similar sounding names. There was no "curse of Canaan." The author is thinking of the "curse of Cain."
}}
{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Race and the Priesthood:2013:Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor}}
{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Race and the Priesthood:Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood}}
{{:Question: What are the "curse of Cain" and the "curse of Ham"}}
{{:Question: When did a biblical curse become associated with the "Hamites?"}}
{{:Question: When did the "mark of Cain" become associated with black skin?}}
{{:Question: How did the "curse of Ham" or "curse of Cain" become associated with Mormonism?}}

==Response to claim: "perhaps it would not have been so prominently practiced by the members if there was no Book of Abraham to support the practice"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=If it wasn't for the Book of Abraham, it is possible that two of the most controversial and objectionable doctrines of the LDS church (polygamy and denying the priesthood to blacks) would not have happened or have been as prominent as they were. Polygamy was already in practice by Joseph but perhaps it would not have been so prominently practiced by the members if there was no Book of Abraham to support the practice.
}}
{{disinformation|Again, the Book of Abraham says nothing about polygamy, and was never used as justification for the practice.
}}

==Response to claim: "The two current most prominent Egyptologists on each side of the BOA issue are LDS Egyptologist Michael Rhodes and nonLDS Egyptologist Robert Ritner"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=The two current most prominent Egyptologists on each side of the BOA issue are LDS Egyptologist Michael Rhodes and nonLDS Egyptologist Robert Ritner. Who would you believe is more qualified to answer the question as to the correct interpretation of the facsimiles and of the Egyptian papyri? Look at their websites and see for yourself.
}}
{{disinformation|The two most prominent Egyptologists on each side of the Book of Abraham issue are LDS Egyptologist John Gee and non-LDS Egyptologist Robert Ritner. John Gee (Ph.D., Yale University) formerly taught at Yale University, and worked in the Department of Egyptian Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. He has numerous publications in non-LDS peer reviewed Egyptology journals. Dr. Gee has been the most prominent LDS Egyptologist for many years. The MormonThink author has disingenuously minimized Gee's credentials (just a "student" of Ritner) and instead chosen Michael Rhodes to compare to Ritner as a way of making it appear that there are no LDS Egyptologists with sufficient credentials to speak on the subject of the Joseph Smith papyri.
}}

==Response to claim: "John Gee...He has written many articles for FARMS. He was a student of Egyptology under Robert Ritner"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=John Gee: FARMS Egyptologist (now at the Maxwell Institute at BYU). William "Bill" Gay Assistant Research Professor of Egyptology at the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts. He has written many articles for FARMS. He was a student of Egyptology under Robert Ritner.
}}
{{disinformation|The critics portray Dr. Gee as "FARMS Egyptologist and simply a "student" under Robert Ritner. In reality, Gee has a Ph.D. in Egyptology from Yale University and has made, and continues to make, ''substantial'' contributions to the field of Egyptology that have nothing to do with FARMS or Latter-day Saint interests. 

*John Gee (Ph.D., Yale University) is currently the William (Bill) Gay Research Professor of Egyptology and a Senior Research Fellow at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University. He formerly taught at Yale University, and worked in the Department of Egyptian Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
*He is currently the only Egyptologist from North America affiliated with the Totenbuch-Projekt of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn.
*Professor Gee has given papers at Egyotological conferences in Atlanta, Baltimore, Berkeley, Bonn, Boston, Brussels, Budapest, Cambridge (Massachusetts), Copenhagen, Giza, Grenoble, Jersey City, Laie, Leuven, London, New Haven, Paris, Philadelphia, Prague, Providence, Reading, Rhodes, San Diego, Seattle, Stevenage, Toledo, Toronto, Tucson, Vancouver, Warsaw, and Washington D.C.
*He has published Egyptological work with E. J. Brill, Peeters, Praeger, Harrassowitz Verlag, Archaeopress, Styx, Sheffield Press, the Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies, the American University of Cairo Press, the Association Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, the Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts, the MEBT-ÓEB Comité de l’Égypte Ancienne de l’Association Amicale Hongroise-Égyptienne, the Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, the Bulletin for the Egyptological Seminar, Göttinger Miszellen, the Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, and the Journal of Egyptian History.
*The Aigyptos Datenbank lists him as having published on Amasis, archives, art, British Museum EA 10416, Book of the Dead, Book of the Dead 31, Book of the Dead 69, Coffin Texts, Coptic language, Coptic studies, daily ritual, Demotic papyri, Demotic studies, Greek papyri, Greeks in Egypt, hypocephali, initiation, lamps, language, Late Period documents, Late Period hieratic papyri, Late Period iconography, Late Period tomb equipment, law, Louvre E 7846, love, marriage, marriage contracts, Mesopotamia, Middle Kingdom literature, Middle Kingdom titles, Near East, New Kingdom documents, New Kingdom hieratic papyri, oaths, oracles, philology, phraseology, priest, prosopography, Ptolemaic Period iconography, Ptolemaic period tomb equipment, religion, ritual, Roman period tomb equipment, Romans in Egypt, seals, Shipwrecked Sailor, social structure, society, society and culture, text, Thebes, title, verbal system, and wab-priest.
*Professor Gee serves on the Board of Trustees of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities and as editor of the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities. He also serves on the program committee for the Egyptology and Ancient Israel Section of the Society of Biblical Literature.

Here are just ''some'' of Dr. Gee's ''non-LDS'' publications in peer-reviewed Egyptology journals:

#“Some Neglected Aspects of Egypt’s Conversion to Christianity,” in ''Coptic Culture: Past, Present and Future'', ed. Mariam Ayad (Stevenage, UK: The Coptic Orthodox Church Centre, 2012), 43-55.
#“The Cult of Chespisichis,” in ''Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious Development of Egypt in the First Millennium BCE'', ed. Ladislav Bareš, Filip Coppens, and Květa Smoláriková (Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, 2010), 129-45.
#“The Book of the Dead as Canon,” ''British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan'' 15 (2010), 22-33, http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_journals/bmsaes/issue_15/gee.aspx .
#“Execration Rituals in Various Temples,” in 8. ''Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Interconnections between Temples'', ed. Monika Dolińska and Horst Beinlich (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010), 67-80.
#“Egyptologists’ Fallacies: Fallacies Arising from Limited Evidence,” ''Journal of Egyptian History'' 3/1 (2010): 137-58.
#“A New Look at the ʿnḫ pꜣ by Formula,” in ''Actes du IXe Congrès international des études démotiques, ed. Ghislaine Widmer et Didier Devauchelle'' (Cairo: Institut Français Archéologie Orientale, 2009), 133-44.
#“A New Look at the Conception of the Human Being in Ancient Egypt,” in ''‘Being in Ancient Egypt’: Thoughts on Agency, Materiality and Cognition'', ed. Rune Nord, Annette Kjølby (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2009), 1-14.
#“Fronted Adverbials,” Bulletin of the ''Egyptological Seminar'' 18 (2009): 83-90.
#“Editorial Foreword: Marginal Notes,” ''Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities'' 36 (2009): v-vi.
#“Of Heart Scarabs and Balance Weights: A New Interpretation of Book of the Dead 30B,” ''Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities'' 36 (2009): 1-15.
#“The Origin of the Imperfect Converter,” ''Journal of the American Research Center'' in Egypt 43 (2007): 253-59.
#“History of a Theban Priesthood,” in «Et maintenant ce ne sont plus que des villages…» Thèbes et sa région aux époques hellénistique, romaine et byzantine. ''Actes du Colloque tenu à Bruxelles'' les 2 et 3 Décembre 2005, ed. Alain Delattre and Paul Heilporn, Papyrologica Bruxellensia 34 (Bruxelles: Association Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 2008), 59-71.
#“On the Practice of Sealing in the Book of the Dead and the Coffin Texts,” ''Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities'' 35 (2008): 105-22.
#“Love and Marriage in the Ancient World: An Historical Corrective,” ''Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities'' 35 (2008): 83-103.
#“Were Egyptian Texts Divinely Written?” ''Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists'', ed. Jean-Claude Goyon and Christine Cardin, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 150 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 807-813.
#“Non-Round Hypocephali,” ''Aegyptus et Pannonia III'', ed. Hedvig Győry (Budapest: MEBT-ÓEB Comité de l’Égypte Ancienne de l’Association Amicale Hongroise-Égyptienne, 2006), 41-58.
#“The Use of the Daily Temple Liturgy in the Book of the Dead,” in ''Totenbuch-Forschungen: Gesammelte Beiträge'' des 2. Internationalen Totenbuch-Symposiums, Bonn, 25. bis 29. September 2005, ed. Burkhard Backes, Irmtraut Munro and Simone Stöhr (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007), 73-86.
#“The Family in the Third (and Second) Millennium . . . BC: Where We’ve Been” in The Family in the ''New Millennium: World Voices Supporting the “Natural” Clan'', 3 vols., ed. A. Scott Loveless and Thomas B. Holman (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2007), 1:114-123.
#“Overlooked Evidence for Sesostris III’s Foreign Policy,” ''Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt'' 41 (2004): 23-31.
#“‘There Needs No Ghost, My Lord, Come from the Grave to Tell Us This’: Dreams and Angels in Ancient Egypt” ''Society of Biblical Literature 2004 Seminar Papers'' (September 2004) (http://www.sbl-site.org/PDF/Gee_Dreams.pdf).
#“Prophets, Initiation and the Egyptian Temple,” ''Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities'' 31 (2004): 97-107.
#“Sꜣ mi nn: A Temporary Conclusion,” ''Göttinger Miszellen'' 202 (2004): 55-58.
#“Trial Marriage in Ancient Egypt? P. Louvre E 7846 Reconsidered,” in ''Res severa verum gaudium'', ed. Friedrich Hoffmann and Günther Vittmann (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 223-31.
#“The Earliest Example of the pḥ-nṯr?” ''Göttinger Miszellen'' 194 (2003): 25-27.
#“Bꜣ Sending and Its Implications,” in ''Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Proceedings of the Eight International Congress of Egyptologists'', Cairo, 2000, 3 vols. (Cairo: American University of Cairo Press, 2003), 2:230-37.
#“Oracle by Image: Coffin Text 103 in Context,” in ''Magic and Divination in the Ancient World'', ed. Leda Ciraolo and Jonathan Seidel, Ancient Magic and Divination II (Leiden: Brill, Styx, 2002), 83-88.
#“The Structure of Lamp Divination,” ''Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies'', CNI Publications 27 (Copenhagen: Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies, 2002), 207-18.
#“Towards an Interpretation of Hypocephali,” “Le lotus qui sort du terre”: Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga, ''Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts Supplément''-2001 (Budapest: Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts, 2001), 325-334.
#“Notes on Egyptian Marriage: P. BM 10416 Reconsidered,” ''Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar'' 15 (2001): 17-25.
#“Aramaic Funerary Practices in Egypt,” co-authored with Bezalel Porten, in ''World of the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion'', ed. P. M. Michèle Daviau, John W. Weavers, and Michael Weigl, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 325 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Press, 2001), 270-307.
}}

==Response to claim: "Stuart Ferguson: LDS archaeologist that spent 20 years on a quest to discover some archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Stuart Ferguson: LDS archaeologist that spent 20 years on a quest to discover some archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon from his expeditions that were funded by the church. He never found any evidence and was getting concerned when about the lack of BOM evidence when the news of the Book of Abraham papyri was rediscovered and given to the church. After reports came out that the Joseph Smith papyri was nothing more than common Egyptian funeral documents he lost his testimony.
}}
{{disinformation|Thomas Stuart Ferguson was not an archaeologist and he had no formal training in archaeology.
}}
{{:Question: Was Thomas Stuart Ferguson an archaeologist?}}
{{:Source:Peterson and Roper:FR 16:1:We know of no one who cites Ferguson as an authority, except countercultists}}
{{:Source:Peterson:FR 16:1:makes every effort to portray Ferguson's apparent eventual loss of faith as a failure for 'LDS archaeology'}}
{{:Source:Gee:FR 10:2:Ferguson is largely unknown to the vast majority of Latter-day Saints; his impact on Book of Mormon studies is minimal}}

==Response to claim: "they needed to renew their subscriptions so they wouldn't miss any of the cliff-hanging Abrahamic adventures in Egypt"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Smith published the BOA in the "Times and Seasons" newspaper (which he owned) in serial form, and notified readers that they needed to renew their subscriptions so they wouldn't miss any of the cliff-hanging Abrahamic adventures in Egypt.
}}
{{propaganda|This is nonsense.
}}
 
==Response to claim: "Apostle Jeffrey Holland was asked why the translation of the Book of Abraham by Joseph Smith doesn't match what Egyptologists say it means"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=In this 2012 BBC documentary, Apostle Jeffrey Holland was asked why the translation of the Book of Abraham by Joseph Smith doesn't match what Egyptologists say it means. Holland only responded that it was the word of God and he doesn't understand how it was translated. That is somewhat disturbing that an apostle can't give a better answer than that.
}}
{{propaganda|Elder Holland was asked this question and honestly answered that he didn't understand the exact method by which the Book of Abraham was produced. Critics of the Church constantly promote the idea that General Authorities are dishonest, yet they complain when one says "I don't claim to know".
}}
{{:Question: How did Elder Holland respond during a BBC interview when asked how the Book of Abraham was translated?}}
{{:Source:Parrish:Painseville Republican:1838:penned down the translation of the Egyptian Heiroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven}}
{{:Source:John Whitmer:History:Joseph the Seer saw these Records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records}}
{{:Source:Woodruff:1842:to translate through the urim & Thummim Ancient records & Hyeroglyphics as old as Abraham}}
<!--
==Response to claim: ==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
}}

==Response to claim: ==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
}}

==Response to claim: ==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
}}

==Response to claim: ==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
}}

==Response to claim: ==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
}}

==Response to claim: ==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
}}

==Response to claim: ==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
}}

==Response to claim: ==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
}}

==Response to claim: ==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
}}

==Response to claim: ==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
}}

==Response to claim: ==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
}}

==Response to claim: ==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
}} -->

{{endnotes sources}}