Only fragments of the original papyri have survived. The only part of the papyri that are reproduced directly in the Book of Abraham are two drawings, only one of which survives in part, and the most interesting and controversial parts are not among the scraps that have survived. Egyptologists have argued that the drawings are "wrong,*" but that's actually kind of the point. The author used a variation on the Egyptian funerary drawing to illustrate a story. As for the text itself, that may have come from a separate papyrus that did not survive, or Joseph may have received it as a direct revelation as he did many other passages of scripture. To me, how Joseph got from the papyri to the extant text is not so interesting as the text itself, which I have found to be extremely valuable.
So the explanation for the translating being completely wrong is the author wasn't actually writing Egyptian?
About how you would deal with it if I laid out to you my theory for how I have disproved the existence of trees. You'd look at it and think, "That's interesting, but I know there are trees, because I've seen them. So I suspect there is something missing in your argument."
Except for some reason we can't actually see the trees (I'm not sure what you mean by seeing them).
So instead we ask what would we expect if there were trees? Well there would be leaves on the ground. Why aren't there leaves? The wind must have blown them away.
Ok, there would be wooden furniture and houses. But then we look and all the houses are brick and the furniture metal and plastic. So you say they must not like to build with wood.
Ok, then there would be fruit in the markets, but there isn't any. You say they must not like fruit.
The problem is that every time there's a test that could endorse the Mormon narrative you end up finding an excuse to explain away the difference.
Joseph Smith claimed there was a sword with the golden plates. Assume we had some fancy sonar that could identify the type any material underground, and, starting at Cumorah Hill, we scanned the earth 100m deep for a 20 km radius.
Would you expect them to find any swords or other metalwork from the 4th century?
Others are biting on the other topics so I'll just mention the genetics bit.
What about the claim that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israelites, something proven false.
That's too big of an issue to get into here, but suffice it to say that your statement of the claim is an oversimplification (the original and current editions of the Book of Mormon state that the peoples of the Book are descended of Joseph of Egypt, and among the ancestors of Native Americans), and the 'evidence' that has been posited against is does not stand up to scrutiny.
Weren't the people described be Semitic? In that case there would be signs of Semitic DNA in the Native American population, if the genes have spread through the genepool then genetic drift won't eliminate all traces. And the things they describe aren't population bottlenecks, for a bottleneck you really have to reduce the population to a small portion of their overall numbers. If a Semitic population had been there for several centuries the DNA would have spread throughout North America. To wipe out that DNA you'd have to drive the Native American to the brink of actual extinction.
Apropos, the answers to all of your questions and the cure to your misconceptions are readily found on the internet. Whether the internet makes some people into atheists, I do not know, but one this is for sure: knowledge, even readily available knowledge, does not by itself make one more informed. One has to know how to seek it out, filter the truth from the noise, and then judiciously apply it.
It's not about knowledge it's about evaluating evidence and arguments. Mormonism isn't just claiming a couple Semites showed up in North America, it is claiming four major kingdoms surviving for almost 1000 years. The problem isn't that there aren't ways you can explain away the evidence, it's that every time there's a way to test the claims of Mormonism you end up having to explain something away.
Why couldn't the plates be investigated by an impartial authority, or the original text transcribed? Well the angel didn't want that.
Why does the little we've seen of the scrolls from book of Abraham have nothing to do with the described text of the book of Abraham? Well it was written by a Jew who wasn't writing proper Egyptian.
Why is there no evidence, genetic or archaeological, of these four huge middle eastern kingdoms that lasted a millenia or more? Apparently Moroni wasn't talking about the Native Americans after all.
Imagine that tomorrow someone discovered the book of Abraham scrolls hadn't been destroyed in fire, and were found intact in some forgotten collection, or some expedition on Cumorah found a bag containing some golden plates and the bag was carbon dated to the 1830s.
They items in question were then scanned and put online. My prediction is that the plates would turn out to be gibberish and the book of Abraham would have nothing to do with Joseph Smith's translation. What do you think the result would be?
Let me give you the view of a non Mormon: Mormonism is bonkers!
That's a compelling counter-argument.
It's a little pithy but he did follow with some actual arguments.
How do you rationalize Smith's behaviour with the gold plates that nobody but him ever saw, and when the transcriber "lost" the translations (to see if Smith actually did have a source document from which he could reproduce the same translation) Smith then provided a different translation. How he translated some Egyptian scrolls into the Book of Abraham, but the scrolls in question have nothing in common with what Joseph Smith translated. What about the claim that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israelites, something proven false.
I'm just curious, I'm sure you're aware of these counterarguments, how do you deal with them?
The US is supposedly selling Democracy, free speech, and freedom of the press.
Government propaganda, particularly covert government propaganda, has no place in Democracy. By using these methods to influence foreign populations not only is the US is undercutting its own message, they're doing through the agency (USAID) that is supposed to be spreading that message.
This is why sunlight is essential, because without it governments fall victim to group think and short sighted objectives and lose the ability to plan for the long term by standing on principal.
I don't think that's the issue precisely, but I think the idea of debunking actual pseudoscience is really dicey.
When you teach evolution you're teaching something the parents think is wrong. They fight it but you can do it.
But if you debunk creationism you're teaching that the parents are wrong. They're going to fight that a lot harder.
Similarly with "Roughly one in three American adults believes in telepathy, ghosts, and extrasensory perception,"
So if you use those as examples of pseudoscience you're saying that 1/3 of parents are wrong.
Even if you could manage it politically I don't like it from an ethical perspective.
It's better to concentrate on teaching good critical thinking skills. The Texas GOP notwithstanding the idea of making kids better critical thinkers is something everyone can get behind, I doubt you can find a single creationist, astrologer, or antivaxxer who doesn't attribute their belief to superior critical thinking skills. Everyone can agree with making the kids better critical thinkers because everyone thinks that they're right and smarter kids will agree with them.
If you want to attack the pseudoscience directly you might be able to get away with inventing some ridiculous fictional pseudoscience and debunk that just so they understand the existence of cargo cult science. But even you'd probably get in trouble as it would be pretty obvious you were "shilling for big science" or something similar.
now here is the mystery. Let's say it was a fire. The captain and crew are incapacitated from carbon monoxide. The fire would take down the whole aircraft. It would burn through the wires for the computer auto pilot and crash the plane well before 7 hours. Or the structure would fail as it would burn through the luggage and explode the fuel compartment.
I'm not convinced this was the case, the fire could run out of oxygen, run out of things to burn (depending where it started), or they could have put it out before succumbing.
Also the path is changed again in the final arc. Why? Wouldn't it logically be on the same new path and be half way between Australia and Africa if the crew did die? That is west of perth alright but WAAY farther west. What in the mathematically geometry that says it is in the search area? Distance wise why wouldn't it be on the other side of the arc southwest instead of southeast?
Also if the plane is flying lower you have more friction if it still was at 12,000 feet. So wouldn't it logically be farther north as it would run out of fuel quicker too?
If it turned later on couldn't that be the result of the autopilot? I'm envisioning a scenario where the pilot tried to program in a return course but was very confused due to oxygen deprivation and wrote in some bizarre flight instructions instead. Soon after the fire everyone was dead and the fire was out but the plane continued flying with weird instructions entered.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.