So, the BOA was theoretically “translated” from some Egyptian papyri. The papyri was lost for many years. There was a fire that destroyed something. Then there was papyri recovered. The recovered papyri is common Egyptian funeral text (Book of Breathing) with only a small number of distinguishing (semi-unique) aspects. It does not translate into the BOA.
There are many theories used to explain this discrepancy. The two papyri theory was offered because there is missing papyri. This theory suggests that something associated with the BOA was contained in other papyri destroyed in fire. A large negative for this theory is that some of the illustrations in the BOA are contained on the surviving papyri. A positive for this theory is that the contemporary (at the time of “translation”) description of the papyri from which the BOA was produced does not match the surviving papyri. There was other papyri maybe it was important?
There are VERY loose translation theories that suggest that some of the unusual aspects of this papyri derive from a pedigree that might including Abraham or something BOA-ish.
There are 100% catalyst theories in that the papyri acted as inspiration for the “translated” material to be received from God and the BOB papyri have nothing to do with the BOA.
My rational mind can only latch onto the “lost papyri” theory, but it is far from satisfactory IMO. I cannot solve this problem, so I quote Cardinal Newman, “10000 problems do not a doubt make.” A small number of LDS have rejected the BOA, but I think this is a less solid position so I believe the BOA is scripture. I am not particularly troubled by the BOA because I find so much evidence elsewhere.
The apologist in my feels to add that my problems with the BOA origins are precisely the reason I find BOM criticism so radically flawed. There are many scientific reasons I do not think the BOM is a fraud. When I look at critics trying to explain the BOM origins, I see as much or more confusion as I see when LDS try to explain the BOA. If I am going to crow loudly about this failure of critics to explain the BOM, then I cannot deny that I cannot explain the BOA satisfactorily.
You can read 1000’s of pages on the BOA (I am probably close). One of my friends began his anti-Mormon career as an Evangelical Christian researching the BOA. He has produced valuable research, but lost his faith along the way and is now an atheist. He is a great guy with a Phd, but no faith and there is no money in his field. I regularly thank God that for whatever reason every time I pull out my best version of a secular scientific scale, I find myself solidly a believer and solidly a LDS.
You are welcome to not be a LDS because of the BOA. Don’t not be a LDS because of “adieu.”
I expect to always not be a Catholic because of the CoJCoLDS, but I will not not be a Catholic because of “call no man father.”
My most important message is to not be a non-Christian because of Christian problems. 10000 problems do not a doubt make!