JOEL - In the Book of Mormon Nephi mentions some prophesies of Joseph which were found on the brass plates:

1 And now, I, Nephi, speak concerning the prophecies of which my father hath spoken, concerning Joseph, who was carried into Egypt.
2 For behold, he truly prophesied concerning all his seed. And the prophecies which he wrote, there are not many greater. And he prophesied concerning us, and our future generations; and they are written upon the plates of brass. (2 Nephi 4:1-2)

Joseph Smith mentioned both records of Abraham and Joseph in his writings:

‘The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation.’ (History of the Church, 2:348.) ‘Thus I have given a brief history of the manner in which the writings of the fathers, Abraham and Joseph, have been preserved, and how I came in possession of the same—a correct translation of which I shall give in its proper place.’ (Ibid., 2:350–51.)

According to Daniel H. Ludlow:
“The record of Abraham translated by the Prophet was subsequently printed, and it is now known as the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. However, the translation of the book of Joseph has not yet been published. Evidently the record of Joseph was translated by the Prophet, but perhaps the reason it was not published was because the great prophecies therein were ‘too great’ for the people of this day” (Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, pp. 130–31).

What I present on my site may or may not be this translation of the Book of Joseph spoken of in Church history. As I said it is "allegedly" a scriptural text. Others have asked me about it and I am now in the process of finding out if it is authentic. I will let you know what I find out.

CLINT - Thank you so much for your response! I actually sent an email today to a professor at BYU, John Gee, who is a professor of Egyptology at BYU to confirm a rumor of it being studied at BYU. He translated The Hor Book of Breathings, which was part of the Joseph Smith Papyri. He is extremely good at writing me back promptly, and if there is anyone that can confirm this rumor it is he. I imagine that he is one of the professors studying it, if it is in fact being studied at BYU.

JOEL - Here is a response from Kevin Barney of the FAIR website:

"Joseph mentioned a book of Joseph in connection with the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian antiquities he purchased in Kirtland, Ohio. While the Book of Abraham was translated and published in the Times and Seasons in 1842, Joseph never got around to translating the Book of Joseph. No such authenticated manuscript exists. This online text is a forgery.
Best,
Kevin Barney

Response from Mike Parker of FAIR:
"I saw Kevin's response to you. Kevin is as close to an expert on the Book of Abraham as anyone I know. (He has published on the subject a number of times, including an article in FARMS' recent book "Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant.") So, yes -- he knows what he's talking about.
Mike Parker

Letter to Kevin Barney:
Thanks, for your info. You said Joseph Smith never got around to translating it. However, I found the following quote from Daniel H. Ludlow:

“The record of Abraham translated by the Prophet was subsequently printed, and it is now known as the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. However, the translation of the book of Joseph has not yet been published. Evidently the record of Joseph was translated by the Prophet, but perhaps the reason it was not published was because the great prophecies therein were ‘too great’ for the people of this day” (Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, pp. 130–31)."

He seems to believe it was translated but not published. Is he wrong?

Response from Kevin Barney:
"A very interesting quote, Joel. One would think that Daniel Ludlow (who was a long-time chair of the correlation committee, and the editor in chief of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism) would be in a position to know about this, but then why does he say "evidently"?
I suspect that Ludlow is misunderstanding the import of a letter from Oliver Cowdery to William Frye, dated December 25, 1835, which was published in the Messenger and Advocate 2/3 (December 1935): 235. This is so far as I know the only source we have for the contents of the Book of Joseph:

The representation of the Godhead--three--yet in one, is curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the writer's views of that exalted personage. The serpent represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of and near a female figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper, or a writing substance; and must go so far towards convincing the rational mind of the correctness and divine authenticity of the holy scriptures, and especially that part which has been assailed by the infidel community, as being fiction, as to carry away with one mighty sweep the whole atheistical fabric, without leaving a vestige sufficient for a foundation stone. Enoch's pillar as mentioned by Josephus, is upon the same roll. True, our present version of the Bible does not mention this fact, though it speaks of the righteousness of Abel and the holiness of Enoch--one slain because his offering was accepted of the Lord, and the others taken to the regions of everlasting day without being confined in the narrow limits of the tomb, or tasting death, but Josephus says that the descendants of Seth were virtuous, and possessed a great knowledge of the heavenly bodies, and that in consequence of the prophecy of Adam, that the world should be destroyed once by water and again by fire. Enoch wrote a history or an account of the same, and put into two pillars one of brick and the other of stone; and that the same were in being at his (Josephus') day. The inner end of the same roll (Joseph's record) presents a representation of the judgment. At one view you behold the Savior seated upon His throne, crowned and holding the scepter of righteousness and power, before whom also, are assembled, the twelve tribes of Israel, the nations, languages and tongues of the earth, the kingdoms of the world over which Satan is represented as reigning, Michael the Archangel, holding the key of the bottomless pit, and at the same time the devil as being chained and shut up in the bottomless pit.

You can find this letter at one of the following links:
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/Letters-cowdery.html
http://www.centerplace.org/history/ma/v2n03.htm

I think it is a mistake, however, to take from this that Joseph had actually translated the text. This is, rather, simply a superficial understanding of the pictures or vignettes accompanying one of the Book of the Dead manuscripts in the Joseph Smith collection. There are four images described, each of which is easily recognizable on the papyri: the "trinity" godhead, the serpent with legs, Enoch's pillar [to me, this is the most questionable identification in the lot], and the judgment scene (which is the vignette accompanying Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead). Oliver's letter doesn't actually presuppose a *translation* of text; it is based simply on a reaction to the pictures.
Oliver was the one who seemed more excited with this visually rich "Joseph" material; Joseph Smith focused on what he viewed as the earlier Abraham material.
It is possible that Joseph actually did a translation of the Book of Joseph, and the Church has managed to suppress it all these years, until someone surreptitiously posted it on the internet. But I am extremely dubious, and am willing to call it a forgery in the absence of any explanation or provenance. If such a text existed, it very likely would have been published by the Tanners or other anti-Mormons decades ago, but I have never seen a claim in any anti-Mormon source that Joseph actually produced a Book of Joseph. Also, the Church wouldn't have hidden such a text in the 19th century (prior to substantial critical argument); they would have trumpeted it and published it. I have never seen a 19th century source referencing such a document.
There was a roundtable of top LDS scholars at BYU on the PoGP many years ago, and in the Q&A session it was clear that none had any idea of an extant Book of Joseph. (I think they pretty much had their heads in the sand on what I view as the clear relationship between Oliver's description of the Book of Joseph and the vignettes in the extant JS Papyri, but that's another subject.)
So my guess is that Ludlow is assuming that Oliver could only have gotten his information from a translation produced by Joseph, but if that is what he is thinking I believe he is clearly wrong.
I'm afraid that's about all I know on the subject, and as far as I can tell from what is in print, that is pretty much all anyone knows. If you really want to pursue this further, try contacting Ron Barney (no relation), at barneyro@ldschurch.org. He is an archivist for the Church, and he would be able to find out whether such a manuscript exists in the Church archives or BYU special collections. (You may use my name and say I sent you, if you like.)
I hope this further discussion is helpful to you."

CLINT - He (John Gee) just sent me an email today. He confirmed what you said in the email you sent me. It's a forgery. I will copy and paste his response for your information.

Dear Brother Gourley,
Although we have three historical records that indicate that Joseph Smith identified a Book of Joseph, we have no record that he spent any time translating it nor are we able to find a time when he might have done so. I too have heard the rumor that BYU has the manuscript and is studying it. There is no one, however, at BYU who knows who is supposedly studying the manuscript (the rumor is rather vague on that point), and no one seems to be able to locate such a manuscript (the rumor is vague on that point as well). The rumor seems to have been put forth to legitimize a forged text. The copy of the Book of Joseph on mormonhaven appears to be a forgery.
John Gee
William (Bill) Gay Associate Research Professor
Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
Brigham Young University

JOEL - Letter to Ron Barney at LDS Church archives:
Brother Ron Barney,
I have in my posession something that I was told is the translation of the Book of Joseph and that it is being studied by the Church.
See Book of Joseph

Kevin Barney(no relation) from FAIR, suggested I contact you to see if you know anythng about it. I am told that it was never translated by Joseph Smith and what I have is probably a forgery, however I found the following quote from Daniel H. Ludlow:

“The record of Abraham translated by the Prophet was subsequently printed, and it is now known as the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. However, the translation of the book of Joseph has not yet been published. Evidently the record of Joseph was translated by the Prophet, but perhaps the reason it was not published was because the great prophecies therein were ‘too great’ for the people of this day” (Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, pp. 130–31).

What I have might be a forgery but Ludlow seems to believe it was translated but not published. Is he wrong?
Do you know of any "Book of Joseph" related manuscripts in the Church archives?

Response from Ron Barney:
"I don't know if what you have attached to your communication is what I saw a few years ago, but I have seen such a thing like this before. I am part of the Joseph Smith Papers project. One of our efforts is to identify every early document now extant that was associated with Joseph Smith, a significant task that we take very seriously. I know of no document in the Church's possession that is purported to be the Book of Joseph, a part of the materials associated with the purchase of Michael Chandler's artifacts by Joseph Smith. I can only assume that this rendering of the so-called Book of Joseph is spurious. You will have to contact Daniel Ludlow to ascertain what he referred to in the quotation you attribute to him."
Ron Barney
Joseph Smith Papers