rcrocket wrote:Well, I guess we are to conclude, based upon your question, that they are pieces of garbage and that the new work is also a piece of garbage.
Now you have the crown for a response that's "somewhat bizarre."
Putting a new cover on a book that's already been done not once, but twice--twenty years ago--is all fine and dandy, if that's what one really wants to do. I never complained about that. Having a Morgasm over what amounts to nothing more than a new cover is the part I don't get.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Hmmmm...Not published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do some of you hope to somehow get a leg up on the Church with a nondoctrinal work?
Daniel Peterson wrote:Dean Jessee, working alone (and very slowly) was never going to finish. So some others joined in to help. When they realized the magnitude of the project, they drafted still others. Ultimately, there will be roughly thirty volumes in the collection. So, while the improvements in these first journal volumes will be relatively minor -- annotations, some superior readings, a few newly discovered texts -- the overall end result will be something far superior to what Brother Jessee was ever going to be able to carry off on his own.
Well, according to your first link, Dean Jesse's original book is only two pages long. So apparently he's found some more sources in the last 20 years.
Dr. Shades wrote:Putting a new cover on a book that's already been done not once, but twice--twenty years ago--is all fine and dandy, if that's what one really wants to do. I never complained about that. Having a Morgasm over what amounts to nothing more than a new cover is the part I don't get.
I notice your recurrent obsession with "Morgasms," whatever those might be, and chalk it up as an interesting personal disclosure. But I'm not sure that I understand why you imagine that this book, let alone the massive thirty-volume project that it inaugurates, "amounts to nothing more than a new cover."
You still wear the crown on this thread for bizarre responses.
Dr. Shades wrote:I never complained about that. Having a Morgasm over what amounts to nothing more than a new cover is the part I don't get.
I'm kind of curious as to what kind of person you are in real life, using vuglarities when discussing religion with people of faith? Make sure you make gas oven jokes with the friends of yours who are Jews.
Daniel Peterson wrote:[ Are you insinuating something sinister or conspiratorial here?
I hope so. I absolutely love the recurrent conspiracy-theorist aspect of this board.
If it seems like a theme, maybe its because Mormons are not known for their candor in it's history and beliefs ..
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
Daniel Peterson wrote:[ Are you insinuating something sinister or conspiratorial here?
I hope so. I absolutely love the recurrent conspiracy-theorist aspect of this board.
If it seems like a theme, maybe its because Mormons are not known for their candor in it's history and beliefs ..
This book is in a different catagory from the Book of Mormon, TAK.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
TAK wrote:If it seems like a theme, maybe its because Mormons are not known for their candor in it's history and beliefs ..
Serious Mormon historiography is of pretty good quality, as those who know it realize.
Some people, who typically haven't read much of it, hold very odd notions about it.
Really? Would M@MM by Turley and Co. fall into that category of "Serious Mormon historiography" ?
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
harmony wrote:This book is in a different catagory from the Book of Mormon, TAK.
Maybe - I rather doubt it though if the customer review on Amazon below is reflective of what is in the book:
While the presentation of the actual documents and writings of Joseph Smith are interesting, the other filler materials such as the glossary and historical background information suffer greatly. Not only do such segments provide the biased and revisionist viewpoint of the compilers, but the bold assertions made there are neither documented within the work, nor footnoted. The glossary and historical background vignettes therefore necessarily taint the reader's view of the base documents and seem to defeat the expressed purpose behind publication. Some of the claims in that extraneous material contradict the writings and assertions made in other works by the Prophet Joseph Smith. For the spiritually attuned reader this volume adds very little, as it appears to embrace the "every historical assertion is equally valid" fallacy in order to appease academia and gain acceptance among the world of noted revisionist historians. This tome glosses over the important considerations that should be viewed in all historical reviews and assessments, like bias, motivation, prejudice and bigotry. It also seems to buy into the "it must be true it is in writing" fallacy that plagues all historical works. To sell out truth, in order to gain acceptance of the world, is not a worthwhile goal and does a disservice to this work.
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010