Comments on: MHA Springfield 2009 Open Thread http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/05/21/mha-springfield-2009-open-thread/ A Mormon Blog Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:11:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Brent Metcalfe http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/05/21/mha-springfield-2009-open-thread/#comment-137812 Wed, 27 May 2009 04:51:02 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=8061#comment-137812 Got it. Thanks, Sam.

Brent

]]> By: Sam MB http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/05/21/mha-springfield-2009-open-thread/#comment-137811 Wed, 27 May 2009 04:43:18 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=8061#comment-137811 search “BCR” at JI from a couple months back.

]]> By: Brent Metcalfe http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/05/21/mha-springfield-2009-open-thread/#comment-137807 Wed, 27 May 2009 04:28:10 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=8061#comment-137807 Thanks again, Jon. I’ll be interested in comparing Pratt’s recollection to the manuscript evidence.

All the best,

Brent

]]> By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/05/21/mha-springfield-2009-open-thread/#comment-137806 Wed, 27 May 2009 04:22:03 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=8061#comment-137806 Actually, a number of volumes earlier, though surprising the same pages – JoD 2:342-3. This is one of the big surprises, a previously non-extant revelation.

]]> By: Brent Metcalfe http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/05/21/mha-springfield-2009-open-thread/#comment-137799 Wed, 27 May 2009 03:26:07 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=8061#comment-137799 Many thanks, Jon.

I assume you’re referring to comments such as those in JoD 18:343?

Kind regards,

Brent

]]> By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/05/21/mha-springfield-2009-open-thread/#comment-137797 Wed, 27 May 2009 03:08:18 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=8061#comment-137797 Sam is talking about the “Ahman” revelation that Pratt talks about.

]]> By: Brent Metcalfe http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/05/21/mha-springfield-2009-open-thread/#comment-137794 Wed, 27 May 2009 02:06:10 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=8061#comment-137794 Hi Sam (post #11),

What do you mean by a “revelation on Pure Language”? (I’m wondering if you’re obliquely referring to the so-called Canadian copyright revelation.) I’m interested in your elaboration.

My best,

]]> By: Kevin Barney http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/05/21/mha-springfield-2009-open-thread/#comment-137637 Tue, 26 May 2009 11:39:55 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=8061#comment-137637 My feeling is that it’s a good book, but not for the faint o fheart. Linda said that when Val was drafting the polygamy chapter, she would write a paragraph, go throw up, lay on the floor until her strength returned, and repeat.

That part of the book is especially jarring because it actually looks at polygamy from a woman’s perspective, not a man’s.

]]> By: Amy S http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/05/21/mha-springfield-2009-open-thread/#comment-137623 Tue, 26 May 2009 04:48:05 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=8061#comment-137623 pages not papers. sigh.

]]> By: Amy S http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/05/21/mha-springfield-2009-open-thread/#comment-137622 Tue, 26 May 2009 04:47:43 +0000 http://bycommonconsent.com/?p=8061#comment-137622 Wow, I haven’t heard about the Mormon Enigma book in ages. I remember reading it as a teenager (my mom had a copy) and being really frustrated by it. I felt like the authors just dumped any info they could find onto the papers without clarifying anything or putting it into perspective. I will have to read it again as an adult and see how it feels now.

]]>