Nor, given the very real testimony I have of the Book of Abraham, do I feel I need to be. Scholarly support for the text is purely an appendage, as far as I am concerned.
If Scratch had ever actually been LDS, or if he actually understood the nuances of LDS apologetic thought, he would know that my meaning here is that scholarship or empirical evidence will never prove the Gospel true. Evidence in the mortal sphere is always and everywhere, too ambiguous or vague, too open to alternate interpretations, and too subject to varying perceptual biases, to make that a viable possibility.
Testimony is the core, the center of one's faith and commitment. Scholarship is never more than an appendage to that. Its purpose, in a Gospel context, is both to add support to the testimony one already has, and to fire the imagination and intellect to seek out more truth "by study and by faith" as part of one's mortal experience. Its function, with nonmembers is only to build bridges and break down walls by showing the plausibility of LDS claims and demonstrating that critics claims are not nearly as certain or water tight as they would have one believe. Only, however, when they receive the same testimony as the scholar who, for the sake of argument, deals in plausibilities and evidence, does plausibility and evidence cease to be the pivitol factors in accepting and living the Gospel.