The Book of Abraham: Origins and Controversies

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 1 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 14

  • @peterblair4448
    @peterblair4448 7 місяців тому +4

    Love this series!

  • @deborahrhodes4892
    @deborahrhodes4892 7 місяців тому +8

    We have been promised personal revelation if we regularly read and study the Book of Mormon. I have experienced this often.

  • @alanyoung6572
    @alanyoung6572 7 місяців тому +3

    Happy to be a Jack Mormon.
    Very much appreciate the scholarship and the amount of work you have put into a quality program.

    • @Glen.Danielsen
      @Glen.Danielsen 7 місяців тому

      Alan, you should marry a Jill Mormon. Jack & Jill? Dumb joke, never mind. 😶

    • @paulgregersen3570
      @paulgregersen3570 3 місяці тому +1

      Catalyst theory has more evidence see why? Link (BOA ep I6)

  • @h00Lia
    @h00Lia Місяць тому

    If I had the words to describe how thankful I am for your work and how it's empowering my relationship with God, I'd type those words here ☺️🕊️

  • @danielraycre
    @danielraycre 7 місяців тому +1

    I'm so glad you covered this one. Looking forward to listening to it!

  • @ashlyncrane8992
    @ashlyncrane8992 7 місяців тому +1

    God loves you!

  • @judigubler7797
    @judigubler7797 7 місяців тому

    How do I find your next podcast? I’m disappointed you left us hanging on this important topic. I loved what you taught but I want to hear the rest of the story

  • @athenabowler3788
    @athenabowler3788 7 місяців тому

    One gospel doctrine teacher told our class that Joseph Smith was going to translate the Joseph of Egypt papyri but was told by the Lord not to because we were not ready for his writings yet. Have either of you ever heard this?

  • @Glen.Danielsen
    @Glen.Danielsen 7 місяців тому +1

    Towering thank you, brothers Scott and Casey. What Robin Jensen and Brian Hauglid do not admit is that their Joseph Smith Papers volume on the Book of Abraham is not mere ‘documents’ as it self-purports. It is *_viewpoint,_* specifically _theirs._ And it is _secular_ viewpoint. We are getting opinion, profusions of conclusions. Scholars are universally loathe to admit that their stare is limited, that their song could be wrong. The Book of Abraham, like all other Holy Writ, is not a history document. Rather, it is a religious/spiritual document. Jensen’s secularist scholar enclave forbade religious perspective in this religious document, let alone _faithful perspective._ And why not? Secularism is where the praise is, and the thrill of bubble-popping the Saints. It is Liberal gaming, and none dare call it priestcraft, though his hiss is that precise definition.

  • @RyanMercer
    @RyanMercer 7 місяців тому +1

    👍 ☺

  • @paulgregersen3570
    @paulgregersen3570 3 місяці тому

    why the catalyst theory is proven in the way the translation evidence concludes. Link UTube (BOA ep I6)

  • @Nutty_Putty
    @Nutty_Putty 7 місяців тому

    You guys do too much yapping and not enough talking about substance