James Randi thinks so and has a very strong argument. (The relevant passage is near the bottom of a very long page.)
After reading this, it’s my informed opinion that Joseph Smith is either guilty of fraud and deceit or was deluded.
Would anyone care to comment, pro or con, on the evidence?
Is “The Book of Abraham” a Mormon volume, or a reference to an Old Testament book?
It’s Mormon. Eh, Jab, it looks like The Amazing Randi’s got 'em dead to rights. What’s to debate? 
Unless you’re just wanting an “is not/is TOO” slugfest with the LDS membership of the boards, in which case I’ll make myself scarce, as the shouting hurts my delicate ears. 
Not much response. I wonder why?
No offense, but maybe it’s because it’s not too much of a debate. If you’re LDS, you’ll believe that the Book of Abraham is a real translation of a book written by Abraham and found by/revealed to Joseph Smith who, with divine help, translated it. (I think I got that right) If you’re not, you won’t.
Wait, was he in Provo, or at Utah State U? Because USU is in Logan…which is quite a distance from Provo. Or did he mean Brigham Young University?
Not that it really matters to the debate, but I’m curious.
I think you’d have to ask Randi. He’s got a good track record to admitting to and correcting his mistakes. (His current weekly report begins with admitting he’d accused magician David Copperfield of claiming to do real magic by predicting the outcome of a lottery. Copperfield complained and Randi ate crow.) Email him and ask him.
Well, now that I’ve seen it, I’ll respond. I’ve read up about it (somewhat, the ‘definitive’ book on it is HUGE). No, we don’t worry about it. We believe that Joseph Smith was inspired to write down the scripture that had been lost. The vehicle (the papyrus) doesn’t matter a lot; it may have just sparked that line of investigation in Smith’s mind, for all I know. I don’t know how it worked, any more than I know how the Book of Moses came along, or exactly how big the Book of Mormon was. This does not bother me.
So, what’s your point? I believe it; you don’t. That’s about it, isn’t it?
That’s precisely correct. The claims presented have been proven wrong so many times in the past, that we LDS are getting tired of refuting the same things over and over again.
Basically, LDS detractors make stronger claims than we LDS do and then “show” that they are false–a classic strawman argument.
As for the claims in the OP:
Eyewitnesses claim that the original scrolls Joseph Smith were much greater in length than the 11 fragments found in the sixties. It is clear then, that the existing fragments are not the entirety of the book (or even close).
The “Alphabet and Grammar” was not done by Joseph Smith. Rather it was attempted by some of his associates, and was shortly abandoned. Joseph made no claim that what we have of the grammar was what he used to translate. Rather he claimed that it was through divine inspiration, similar to the Book of Mormon.
See http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml for more details.
Thank you, emarkp. I wasn’t going to post here, because jab1 just likes to sprinkle his anti-LDS trollings around. But you said pretty much what I would have said, if I would have said it.
Just for the record, James Randi is only a reporter in this – the folks making the anti-Book of Abraham arguments were (this was some time ago) Utahns. I’m not sure who made the original arguments, but you can find much of this in Gerald and Sandra Tanner’s book Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, which must be in its umpteenth edition now from Utah Lighthouse Ministries.
emarkp, I am grateful for the link. I hadn’y come across the LDS rebuttal before.
I did notice that jab1’s original source was Randi. I also note that he accepted the information without further investigation (which is par for the course). Randi is guilty of the same–or if he did investigate rebuttals, he failed to disclose what he found. This doesn’t exactly give me a high opinion of Randi.
I don’t think the Tanners have made any scholarly attacks on the Book of Abraham. They usually stick to misquoting historical documents to twist statements of LDS, and then attacking those twisted meanings.
It is most likely that Randi is referring to By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri by Charles M. Larson.
That book is rebutted in detail at:
http://farms.byu.edu/free/review/4/r4.asp?content=rhodes
and
I don’t find it clear at all. Eyewitnesses can be wrong (and often are). How do we confirm their claims?
You say that I did not investigate Randi’s story. Short of learning how to read Egyptian hieroglyphics and then getting the fragments and reading them myself, how was I to investigate his report?
You should also know that this is not the first time Randi has given his assessment of Joseph Smith. For example, Smith is mentioned more than once in Randi’s Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural, published in 1995. His current opinion of Smith is the same as when he wrote that Encyclopedia.
Investigating supernatural claims and exposing hoaxes and frauds is what Randi does. If he does establish (or HAS established) that Mormonism is based on a deception, it seems to me that you’d be grateful.
Some may say I’m a nitpicker. And I am. The fact that Randi can’t remember if he was in Provo or Logan (FWIW, he emailed me and said he thinks it was in Provo, but he can’t remember because it was a long time ago) makes me wonder, what else did he misremember? What other claims did he not bother to follow up on? (The Copperfield thing immediately springs to mind—he really reamed Copperfield for two weeks.)
FWIW-I’m a big fan of Randi and visit his site on a daily basis and read his commentary every week. My point is, even smart intelligent people make mistakes, and not everything that anybody says should just be accepted.
Interesting, jab, that you so quickly discount eyewitness reports that you don’t seem to have read. The accounts describe scrolls which, unrolled, covered the floor. Are you suggesting that every person who saw them was fooled into describing a few fragments as several long scrolls? Isn’t it more likely that the fragments are only what is left after the other texts were lost? The early LDS certainly had enough opportunity to lose them.
The papyrus used by Joseph Smith was also described as in good condition and with rubrication. The fragments of the Book of Breathings have no rubrication, were clearly not in good condition even in Smith’s day, and seem in fact to have fallen apart before Smith recieved them.
No one in the LDS Church has claimed that this is the source for the Book of Abraham. No Egyptian text has ever been publicized as such. That was done by others, with no explanation for why they felt that it was so. As we see it, someone has put forth a certain text, announced, with no proof or reason, that it was the original for the Book of Abraham, and then proceeded to prove that Joseph Smith could not have translated it as the book. So what? We never said he did.
By the way, I quite like Randi–I just think he’s wrong here.
And, you ask what more investigation you could do. You could try getting hold of the LDS version of events and reading up! How about The message of the Joseph Smith papyri, by the self-same Nibley you wrote of above? The first chapter deals with these claims and contains a detailed account of the mummies and scrolls’ provenance. You won’t even have to read the whole thing!
Then there’s the items at Deseret Book–you can search under ‘Book of Abraham.’ I can’t get links to the books to work, sorry.