Are ALL Mormons Cowards?

[_Mike Reed]

Come on over to the "Celestial" board and join the debate already under way. Perhaps you can show us some reasons to think that your so-called "prophet" translated the "Book of Abraham" correctly when he identified the sons of Horus as "Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash".

Joseph Smith is not my prophet (so-called or otherwise), you bigoted blustering bombastic buffoon. I am a nonbeliever.

I can hardly wait to see yet another Mormon trying to deflect and evade the questions while trying to change the subject.

And yet the irony is that you've evaded my questions in this very thread.

Again...

Sure. I'll debate you. My position: You don't have a clue what the latest scholarship is on the matter, for or against the Book of Abraham.

Please prove me wrong by listing three new contributions to the Book of Abraham debate--contributions that have been made in the the last three years--for and against the Book of Abraham.

For the Book of Abraham
1.
2.
3.

Against
1.
2.
3.

Also... please list two works related to the topic that critics/apologists anticipate being published soon. One of each will suffice.

[_bcspace]

We are not cowards. But we do get tired of the same old intellectual dishonesty that pervades the antiMormon world. As for the Book of Abraham, it is not possible for any criticism to bite until the missing papyri are discovered and the fact that the ancient Egyptians rigorously changed embarrassing history is accounted for, at least.

Kevin Graham has already proven beyond reasonable doubt that the extant papyrus are the source of the Book of Abraham.

And evidence for this would be?

Even if it weren't, the erroneous translation of the facsimiles and the inaccurate history in the Book of Abraham itself are still the smoking gun.

[Taps the sign] "and the fact that the ancient Egyptians rigorously changed embarrassing history is accounted for"