The page you are looking at will give the individual seeking the quick and dirty problems a brief list of questions that need to be answered. For comprehensive views see Jeff Lindsay's site for the orthodox "answer" and this book for a detailed critique of Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham.
Jeff Lindsay's site ends with this note:
"So what do I think about the real source of the Book of Abraham? I personally feel that Joseph had a scroll (in red and black) which really contained writings about Abraham. That scroll is not the Book of Breathings, but was probably part of the collection that A. Combs sold, which ultimately may have perished in the 1871 Chicago Fire. There are still questions I can't answer, but I certainly see no reason to reject Joseph Smith because of the Book of Breathings. To those who insist that no legitimate translation of the Book of Breathings could possibly result in the Book of Abraham, I agree!"Jeff's site (and other apologetic literature) may cause some to think that the Book of Abraham problems aren't so great after all. His conclusion (that the translated portion was destroyed by fire) at first glance may make logical sense if one ends their investigation there. His site however neglects to address several key questions that one should raise if the answer of the real source being destroyed by fire is to be the faith cushion they are going to fall on.
For an excellent analysis of the poor scholarship Hugh Nibley has resorted to in order to reduce dissonance, see Ed Ashment's essay in The Word of God.
An article on the subject can be found in the March 1997 issue of the Ensign. The author completely ignores the above questions. No mention of any kind is made regarding the incorrect translations and erroneous reconstructions of the facsimiles. He does however makes a few rather cunning statements. For instance, he states that it is "an authentic ancient record" but fails to mention that it is not authentic or ancient in the sense that church uses it (since it wasn't 'authentically' written by Abraham and it is almost 2,000 years 'less ancient' than the church claims). He also quotes Wilford Woodruff who said that it was "hid from the knowledge of man for . . . four thousand years". This statement being made almost 30 years after we have known that the papyrus is only about 2,000 years old is deceptive scholarship at best. Also interesting is the first full-page color illustration in the article which shows a bald Abraham about to kill his son with a dagger similar to the incorrectly restored Facsimile 1 in the Book of Abraham. Egyptologists (and the church) have known for almost 100 years the facsimile was falsely 'restored' and a correct rendition would have been one of a jackal-headed being who isn't holding a dagger (or knife of any kind). The most accurate statement in the entire article is the one that says that a person must have a prayerful heart and an eye of faith to be grateful for the record. Someone with a heart and eye fixed on reality will have a hard time stomaching the continued deception.
Although we aren't as fortunate to have a copy of the claimed source for the Book of Mormon, there are numerous questions one should ask regarding it if they don't want their faith to blind. See this page for just a few of them. [an error occurred while processing this directive]