Upvote:2
While I agree with kutschkem answer, the question asks If Joseph Smith "inaccurately" translated Egyptian hieroglyphs in his Book of Abraham, does this cast doubt on his translation, the Book of Mormon?
The answer is potentially, I'd personally say no. The four cases are (really only two, if OP assumes Book of Abraham is translated incorrectly, see #2,4):
Book of Mormon translated correctly and Book of Abraham translated correctly
Since Joseph Smith was able to translate the Book of Mormon1 by the power of God, he should also be able to translate other texts. See kutschkem answer for further response.
Book of Mormon translated incorrectly and Book of Abraham translated incorrectly
A few thoughts:
Book of Mormon translated incorrectly and Book of Abraham translated correctly
Seems the biggest stretch. You'd have to accept the apologist response2 (or similar theory) and then reject similar ability on earlier work by Joseph Smith. I don't think anyone would believe this option. Why they would this be believed?
Book of Mormon translated correctly and Book of Abraham translated incorrectly
See thoughts on #1
A few thoughts:
We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Upvote:4
Shamelessly copying from this answer:
Modern analysis of fragments of papyri believed to be those which Smith had in possession shows that they portray a standard Egyptian burial, as such scholars generally reject Smith's translation. It is also worth noting that many LDS scholars also agree that the papyri do not contain a translation as produced by Smith. They have, however, produced excellent apologist work in defense of the Book of Abraham and have posed multiple theories as to how it could have been produced. One such is the fact that the majority of the papyri were destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire, and therefore it is contended that perhaps the translation is based on papyri which have been lost. Some of the apologetics are based on an analysis of the content of the work and not of its origin. Much of this work can be found at BYU's Maxwell Institute online.
Due to the parts of the papyri being lost, it is impossible to say with certainty that the papyri Joseph had didn't actually contain the Book of Abraham. The only thing we can say is that, if it existed, it seems like that part didn't survive the fire.
The church has in recent years released a video regarding the Book of Abraham. It mentions two different theories regarding the origin:
I don't really like the second theory, but since parts of the papyri are lost, it's not really possible to decide which one is right. It's honest to say the surviving fragments don't contain the Book of Abraham, but dishonest to say this means definitely none of the papyri that got destroyed did. In any case, neither theory really discredits him, the second one merely showing, if it were true, some ignorance on Josephs part with regards to what this "translation" was that he was receiving.