Jump to content

caspianrex

Members
  • Content Count

    164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

181 Excellent

About caspianrex

  • Rank
    Musicmeister, Bible collector, BofM fan
  • Birthday 07/22/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Nashville, TN
  • Interests
    Bible, theology, language, Shakespeare, Book of Mormon, Sherlock Holmes

Recent Profile Visitors

1,014 profile views
  1. A warm day in Nashville today! Expecting some more heavy storms tonight...

  2. I've had a copy of the RCE for several years...actually, I posted about it a few months back on this forum. Despite the fact that it uses the RLDS numbering system (which is kind of a pain), I think the RCE has one of the most user-friendly text layouts of any edition. Grant Hardy's two editions are good, too.
  3. I have Valletta's BoM Study Guide...it's not super in-depth, but I find it helpful, especially as a non-member. (I think I have Ludlow's book in ebook form...)
  4. I'll try sharing the pics as links to my Google Photos. That might work better...usually cut & past works for me just fine on this forum. https://photos.app.goo.gl/cVMR9YKi7vPzZWR17 If someone could let me know if the pics are visible at that link, I would greatly appreciate it!
  5. Hm, that's weird, everything looks normal on my end. Did anyone else have trouble seeing the pics I posted? Just curious. When I log in on Chrome, Edge, and Firefox, the pics look fine. But I also tried the Brave browser, and I just got long links instead of pictures. I wonder what went wrong?
  6. Well, I did some more checking, and despite the fact that they don't give credit to the 1981 BoM text, it look like it is indeed that version. This very helpful article mentions a textual variation between pre-1981 texts and the 1981 text: "formation" vs. "foundation" in 1 Nephi 13. The Book of Mormon for Latter-day Saint Families has "formation" in that chapter, which matches the 1981 text. Maybe they left out the attribution so the edition wouldn't be confused with an official church publication?
  7. I'm pretty sure, if it was the 1981 edition, that they would be required to include that information on their copyright page. Public domain text, however, does not require that kind of attribution. That's why I'm thinking it was very likely the 1920 text.
  8. Were the pictures not visible on your end? I'm not sure how to interpret your comment.
  9. A couple months ago, I saw a post on Twitter from a gentleman named Benjamin Arkell, who runs a website Called to Share. His tweet was a picture of several copies of The Book of Mormon from his library, including The Book of Mormon for Latter-day Saint Families. I commented that, even though I am not a Latter-day Saint, I had several of the editions in his picture, except for The Book of Mormon for Latter-day Saint Families, but mentioned I had been thinking of purchasing it. He kindly responded that, if I would DM him my address, he would be happy to send me a copy, which he did. I'm very happy with the edition, as it's quite a lovely, large, hardcover volume, with abundant illustrations and helpful notes. (One caveat: the binding is already cracking in spots, so that is one flaw.) Indeed, despite the book's title, I think it's actually a pretty good edition of the BoM for non-LDS folks, as the notes can be very helpful for people who aren't familiar with the work, as well. One unusual thing I noticed about the publication is that although the copyright page lists a publication date of 1999 (which I'm assuming is actually for the annotations and such), there is no indication of which text of the BoM is used. That leads me to assume that it is the public domain 1920 text. I would appreciate hearing from anyone who owns or is familiar with the edition, and can either verify or correct my assumption. I am including a few pics I took of the edition, so you can see its cover and the layout of the pages, as well as the title page and some of the study helps included.
  10. It looks like the "intense stare" I alluded to in my previous post was absolutely an intentional directorial decision. See this quote from the Wikipedia article on the film:
  11. Well, the only short clip I could find of Powell's performance was here. And actually, watching it now, I think I can appreciate his performance a bit better. I think it's his intense stare that struck me as a bit creepy. But I suppose it was meant to be intense. I also admit that my perception of Powell's performance may have been colored by the fact that I first saw him in The Who's famous rock opera Tommy, which is a truly bizarre film. He played Tommy's dad, who is murdered early in the film. He comes back to Tommy in visions, so I may have projected some of his creepiness in that role onto his performance as Jesus of Nazareth. Incidentally, I am not a Latter-day Saint, either. I am a Methodist (I serve a UMC church as Director of Music), who was raised Lutheran. So you and I probably agree on quite a bit theologically. Since it was in a Catholic Lenten service in Chicago that I first "rediscovered" my faith in my late twenties, I have a deep appreciation for Catholicism.
  12. @3DOP, I totally get your point, and actually see a lot of wisdom in what you said. Thoughts on the creepiness of Robert Powell's Jesus? 😃
  13. Olivia Hussey was fabulous as Mary, and Michael York was the best John the Baptist EVER. However, Robert Powell has always struck me as a rather creepy Jesus. He just always has a slightly psychotic look on his face.
  14. I hereby submit my idea for a redesign of the cover of the church edition of the Book of Mormon...
  15. Wow, hearing Thurl Ravenscroft (of "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" fame) sing it is WAY better than the guy who sang it in the video I shared! Thanks for finding this rendition!
×
×
  • Create New...