Spider-Man Has Left the Church

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Who has said that?  Who is advocating censorship of Jeremy Runnells?

Oh, brother.  Let's be clear: Jeremy Runnells can say whatever he wants.  It's a free country.  I strongly support his right to Free Speech.

But I also support my right to Free Speech.

I never suggested your rights of free speech are or should be limited.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The CES letter is, in my view, an exercise in bad faith.  It presents itself as a letter to a CES director.  It is not...

By the same reasoning, the letter that presents itself as a letter to the Corrintians is in bad faith, the letter that presents itself as a letter from Pahahron to Captain Moroni is in bad faith, etc.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It presents itself as a good faith effort to confer and communicate with the CES director.  It is not. 

Right. You've asserted this over and over, but don't have any evidence it is true. You have the legal right to keep repeating it, of course. But looks like an ad hominin attack to avoid the actual issues.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It presents itself as the product of genuine and rigorous study and effort.  It is not (instead, it appears to be a massive copy-and-paste job). 

Just because disbelievers have similar reasons for disbelieving doesn't mean their reasons are a massive copy-and-paste job. And just because you deride it as being dishonest because it allegedly isn't the product of genuine and rigorous study and effort doesn't mean you've addressed any of the actual issues. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It is dishonest by its deliberate and extensive refusal to address the many and extensive treatments of these issues.  

There is nothing the least bit dishonest about explicitly limiting the scope of a letter to stating why you believe what you believe.

But I'll note that it's ironic that you simultaneously criticize it for being too long to respond to, while also criticizing it for not being much longer by comprehensively addressing "the many and extensive treatments of these issues."

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So let's dispense with the notion that opponents of the Church who go out of their way to publicly criticize and attack the Church nevertheless somehow deserve some sort of kid-glove treatment because they have heart-felt feelings about the matter.

You don't have to be nice to people. You don't have to demonstrate empathy. You don't have to understand why people believe what they do. You don't need to give anybody the benefit of the doubt. And you don't need to understand why this particular book is so powerful. And you don't have to address the actual issues. If you prefer to respond to it with ad hominin attacks, that is your right.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That said, while I usually try to treat critics like Mr. Runnells with respect, perhaps I have failed recently as regarding him.  Perhaps my criticisms of his conduct have veered into criticisms of his character.  The distinction can sometimes be hard to make, but it's worth the effort to maintain it.  So I will reconsider my position a bit.

I appreciate the sentiment. But in my opinion it would be even better if you didn't criticize his conduct or his character, and instead focused on his ideas.

But we are repeating ourselves here, so I'll let you have the last word.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this.

[sunstoned]

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Still worked up over the bride's age are we? 

By 2005 couples dont bother getting married until they need an extra romantic event to keep the flame alive, having been shacked up for years.

Averages can be remarkably meaningless at times.

A bride's age doesn't both me. Unless she is under age and pressured to marry her religious leader who is 20 years older than her by her father on the promise that she and her family (including the father) will be exalted in the celestial kingdom.  Again, it's not the age that bothers me.  It is someone in a position of power, in a trusted ecclesiastical position, that uses collusion and deception to get what he wants.  That is what bothers me. 

Edited August 31, 2018 by sunstoned

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

A bride's age doesn't both me. Unless she is under age and pressured to marry her religious leader who is 20 years older than her by her father on the promise that she and her family (including the father) will be exalted in the celestial kingdom.  Again, it's not the age that bothers me.  It is someone in a position of power, in a trusted ecclesiastical position, that uses collusion and deception to get what he wants.  That is what bothers me. 

Yes, not Godly at all.

[sunstoned]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Noun:

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.” -- Joseph Smith

               History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed. rev., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1960), 6:411

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:

I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. – Gordon B. Hinckley

                  Time. August 4, 1997

3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

We are in the midst of incredible growth, staggering growth in this church….a week ago, we created 15 stakes, and we are doing that every week, more or less. – Jeffrey R. Holland

                YSA Address, Dallas TX, April 24, 2016

4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie:

President N. Eldon Tanner of the First Presidency wrote a message in the August 1979 Ensign that stated emphatically, "When the prophet speaks the debate is over." The editors of the Ensign neglected to mention that when a church magazine made a similar statement in the late 1940's, President George Albert Smith denied that it was a true statement (in a private letter to a Protestant minister). (Lavina Fielding Anderson, Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue, pp. 11, 13)

Verb (w/out Object)

5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

Verb (w/ Object)

7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively)

There seems to be a lot of that going around

[Calm]

From Reddit exmormon community, posted by .runnells, take it how you will:

Quote

Author of "A Letter to a CES Director" here.

Joseph Smith this and Joseph Smith that can easily be dismissed in the TBM mind as "anti-Mormon lies". I felt starting out with Joseph Smith being a fraud/womanizer/pedophile/whatever would doom my letter from the start.

Why are there 1769 KJV errors in the Book of Mormon? Why are there 17th century italics in there? Why are there KJV text in there that Joseph later fixed in his inspired version?

All of the above cannot easily be dismissed as "anti-Mormon lies". They can pull out the scriptures to compare the italics. They can compare to the inspired version and see the problems for themselves.

If I'm going to have someone read 77 pages? They're going to get hooked immediately. This was my "hook". I go into the Joseph Smith stuff later but the foundation has to be laid and what better foundation than the very "keystone of our religion"?

Like ------ stated, everyone is different. Everyone has a different button. I likewise find this to be true. Besides, my letter is open source. It's yours to do as you will, if you choose. I just ask that my name be removed.

No link provided as language can get vulgar, but you can find it easily enough by searching for a phrase.

From someone answering his request for feedback from the Reddit group before he sent it off:

Quote

As someone who shares your skepticism, I loved it. 

As a rational being with a BA in English, unfortunately mired down by the need for compassion and fairness, I think you stopped being evenhanded about halfway through. You use a lot of loaded language like "I'm supposed to believe _____ ???[subtext: HOW PREPOSTEROUS]" Refer to their god as a schizophrenic monster (again no argument here but you're going to trigger a defensive reaction). 

Arguments like this one give exmo's like us raging brain-ons by confirming everything in which we are already deeply invested, but all it's going to do to anyone else is raise their disrespect and disgust alerts (read up on Moral Foundations Theory) and shut their receptiveness down (even the church knows that and teaches their missionaries to use tact for this exact reason.)

also there are still some typos (when talking about having enough FOOD on Noah's Ark, the typo FLOOD instead of FOOD exists)

If you send out a chummed up paper like that, don't be surprised if you get back an answer that is equally invested in one side and filled with loaded language that doesn't show respect or understanding of your side. (Not that that's not what you're gonna get back from a CES director anyways but if you try your hardest to be fair and compassionate then at least you can be justifiably surprised and indignant about it.)

And he posted it publicly before he sent it off to the director:

Quote

You guys can do whatever you want with the Word document. Personalize it for yourselves to give to your TBM loved ones. It's yours.

Earlier posted:

Quote

 

Along with my grandpa, my TBM dad asked me to meet with the CES Director. I told him that I would if he would be willing to read my document. He agreed. He read it and we had a great phone conversation where he asked questions.

Besides, I didn't write this for the CES guy. I'm not under any illusion that I'm going to change his mind. It's not going to happen. I wrote this for my kids who one day are going to ask their dad why he left the faith.

First public introduction of letter:  Nevermind, can't format right...

Sneaky links

Edited August 31, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

There seems to be a lot of that going around

Standard anti-Mormon boilerplate.

I'll deal with just one thing on your list:
 

Quote

 

I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. – Gordon B. Hinckley

                  Time. August 4, 1997

 

This as I recall, is in the context of the Lorenzo Snow couplet, "As man now is, God once was; As God now is, so man may be."

What the antagonists fail to comprehend/acknowledge is that President Hinckley's comment was in reference to the first portion of the couplet, "As man now is, God once was." And in that connection, his comment was absolutely correct. This concept is not emphasized or discussed very much in the Church, because scarcely anything is known about it. It is the second part of the couplet that is emphasized and discussed quite often.

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Standard anti-Mormon boilerplate.

I'll deal with just one thing on your list:
 

This as I recall, is in the context of the Lorenzo Snow couplet, "As man now is, God once was; As God now is, so man may be."

What the antagonists fail to comprehend/acknowledge is that President Hinckley's comment was in reference to the first portion of the couplet, "As man now is, God once was." And in that connection, his comment was absolutely correct. This concept is not emphasized or discussed very much in the Church, because scarcely anything is known about it. It is the second part of the couplet that is emphasized and discussed quite often.

 

Except that is not what President Hinckley stated.  He stated that the couplet is rarely taught, not just the first part of the couplet.  You are changing the conversation that actually took place to suit your own agenda. President Hinckley's response was disappointing.  

[Calm]

Quote

Notice that the conversation was not about Heavenly Father’s past, but specifically about our potential to become like Him. President Hinckley clearly confirmed the second half of President Snow’s couplet in the interview. Time agrees. However, what is important to this conversation, considering it is about context, is that the statement was only a part of the total statements on the subject. The transcript provided by Mr. Wilson’s organization of this portion of the interview shows just what President Hinckley’s published quote was in response to.

	Transcript		Comments
	Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.   A: Yeah
	Q: …about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?		Notice the ellipsis starting this question. This may be the ellipsis Ms. Ray was referring to, but there is no indication of such.   Also, pay particular note to the actual question being asked.
	A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.		The answer is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us. We emphasize trying to pattern our lives after Jesus Christ so we may reach our full potential of becoming like God is. As for not discussing the concept in public discourse, all one has to do is examine Conference talks to see the truth of the answer.   Red text was omitted in the Time article and replaced with ellipsis.

President Hinckley did not deny this part of President Snow’s couplet. He merely said we do not emphasize it, which is true. We are more concerned with our future, not Heavenly Father’s past. So how could this be out of context? Simply because the author of the article said “On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain” does not mean that President Hinckley was, in fact, uncertain. The author goes on to quote President Hinckley stating that we do not emphasize it. The article did not print the question President Hinckley was answering. The question was, “Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the father was once a man like we are?” (emphasis added) To which President Hinckley replied, “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it.”

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/does_president_hinckley_understand_lds_doctrine

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/does_president_hinckley_understand_lds_doctrine

Thanks for posting this documentation. I had seen it before on the FaitMormon site, though I didn’t take time in this instance to look it up and post it. I’m glad you did. 

Context can make a world of difference — as I hope California Boy and Sunstoned can see by now. 

Edited August 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

Aquaman has recently confirmed that he too has left the church. He was offended because people kept trying to tell him that Satan controls the waters.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

anti-Mormon

Not to derail, but is this still a thing? 

 

ETA I mean in light of President Nelson’s recent remarks on the word Mormon

Edited August 31, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

From Reddit exmormon community, posted by .runnells, take it how you will:

No link provided as language can get vulgar, but you can find it easily enough by searching for a phrase.

From someone answering his request for feedback from the Reddit group before he sent it off:

And he posted it publicly before he sent it off to the director:

Earlier posted:

First public introduction of letter:  Nevermind, can't format right...

Sneaky links

• "You guys can do whatever you want with the Word document. Personalize it for yourselves to give to your TBM loved ones."
• "Along with my grandpa, my TBM dad asked me to meet with the CES Director. I told him that I would if he would be willing to read my document. He agreed. He read it and we had a great phone conversation where he asked questions."
• "Besides, I didn't write this for the CES guy. I'm not under any illusion that I'm going to change his mind. It's not going to happen. I wrote this for my kids who one day are going to ask their dad why he left the faith."

Thanks for these.

So the letter was, in fact, never written in good faith, not even at the outset ("I didn't write this for the CES guy").  He made (and continues to make) the following statement in the preamble of his letter (referring to the CES director):

Quote

 You may have new information and/or a new perspective that I may not have heard or considered before. This is why I’m genuinely interested in what your answers and thoughts are to these issues.

Hmm.  Can "I'm genuinely interested in what [the CES director's] answers and thoughts are" be reconciled with "I didn't write this [letter] for the CES guy?"  I don't think so.  The CES director was never the target audience.  Runnells's children were (as evidenced by his own statement), and other members of the Church were and are (as evidenced by his publishing it to the world, encourating people to "do whatever you want" with it, "give [it] to your TBM loved ones," having it published online and in multiple languages, etc.).

I'm curious about the second statement above ("Along with my grandpa, my TBM dad asked me to meet with the CES Director. I told him that I would if he would be willing to read my document. He agreed. He read it and we had a great phone conversation where he asked questions.").  When Runnells said "He agreed" and "He read it" and "we had a great phone conversation where he asked questions," is he referring to the CES director?  Or his father?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 31, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not to derail, but is this still a thing? 

 

ETA I mean in light of President Nelson’s recent remarks on the word Mormon

I've noticed Scott's been sending some pretty mixed messages on this.  he tells everyone it'd be really bad to not follow the prophet on this.  But then since he's been promoting calling members Mormons in his sig line since this came out.  When I pointed it out to him he seemed to ignore me and continued condemning those who tend to think it's silly to worry about the name.  

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Aquaman has recently confirmed that he too has left the church. He was offended because people kept trying to tell him that Satan controls the waters.

Nobody cares about Aquaman, though. Spiderman's apostasy was much more earth-shattering . . .  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Notice that the conversation was not about Heavenly Father’s past, but specifically about our potential to become like Him. President Hinckley clearly confirmed the second half of President Snow’s couplet in the interview. Time agrees. However, what is important to this conversation, considering it is about context, is that the statement was only a part of the total statements on the subject. The transcript provided by Mr. Wilson’s organization of this portion of the interview shows just what President Hinckley’s published quote was in response to.

	Transcript		Comments
	Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.   A: Yeah
	Q: …about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?		Notice the ellipsis starting this question. This may be the ellipsis Ms. Ray was referring to, but there is no indication of such.   Also, pay particular note to the actual question being asked.
	A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.		The answer is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us. We emphasize trying to pattern our lives after Jesus Christ so we may reach our full potential of becoming like God is. As for not discussing the concept in public discourse, all one has to do is examine Conference talks to see the truth of the answer.   Red text was omitted in the Time article and replaced with ellipsis.

President Hinckley did not deny this part of President Snow’s couplet. He merely said we do not emphasize it, which is true. We are more concerned with our future, not Heavenly Father’s past. So how could this be out of context? Simply because the author of the article said “On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain” does not mean that President Hinckley was, in fact, uncertain. The author goes on to quote President Hinckley stating that we do not emphasize it. The article did not print the question President Hinckley was answering. The question was, “Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the father was once a man like we are?” (emphasis added) To which President Hinckley replied, “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it.”

 

 

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/does_president_hinckley_understand_lds_doctrine

2

Thanks for posting this Calm. I added the bold to what the question actually was. We should keep that in mind when looking at President Hinckley's answer

The church definitely teaches that God was once a man.  If it didn't teach that then Lorenzo Snow's couplet would not be so well known among members of the church.  That couplet would dwell in the dustbin of all those other quotes from past prophets that are no longer believed.  But it is one of those phrases that most active members of the church could recite.  

Not sure President Hinckley could even rightfully say that we don't emphasize it since the entire couplet is always said together.  

The only part I agree with is that the Church has never talked much about HOW all of that worked. And the Church certainly emphasize the second half of the couplet more as it applies to our trajectory.  But the concept that God was once like us and we can become like Him is firmly found in gospel teaching.  

Also, it is not true that the church does not know the origin of the couplet.  Here is the history of it.  When Lorenzo Snow related his revelation of the couplet to Joseph Smith, this was the prophet's response.

 

Quote

 

‘Brother Snow, that is a true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you.’” (LeRoi C. Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, p. 656.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” 

 

 

And from that same article posted on LDS.org

Quote

It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today.

•  

Notice that the statement from the Church's official website doesn't say only half of the couplet is accepted doctrine in the Church today.

 

Quote

 

Q:Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

The commentator on the right makes this statement.

The answer is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us. We emphasize trying to pattern our lives after Jesus Christ so we may reach our full potential of becoming like God is. As for not discussing the concept in public discourse, all one has to do is examine Conference talks to see the truth of the answer

 

 

That is absolutely incorrect since the entire couplet is still in use I still think President Hinckley was not really honest in his answer.  The opinions written on the right-hand side does not match up with church teachings. This is where I have a problem with what President Hinckley said specifically and why the explanation is faulty

 

 

 

[champatsch]

Quote

Why are there 1769 KJV errors in the Book of Mormon?

This is the first question of the letter. We can currently find a list of 13 potential errors (https://cesletter.org/1769-kjv-errors/). Yet most of them are not clearly errors. Seraphims isn't an error, it's an early modern double plural variant. Chickens ~ chicks isn't a clear error: both can refer to the young of the domestic fowl. Prudent ~ diviner isn't an error, since prudent in the KJV has an obsolete meaning of 'discerning person', which is close to 'diviner'. Even "eloquent orator", paired with "cunning artificer", isn't a clear error, since an expert in charms brings about the charm by speaking an incantation forcefully and eloquently. Fencing and digging are not unrelated. Isaiah 2:6 and 11:3 have obscure source language, and the KJV translations aren't clear errors. The wild beast terms are archaic and not clear errors. Isaiah 2:9 isn't a clear error either, although the causative sense I see in later translations is missing in the KJV. Isaiah 9:1; 10:18; 49:5 do look like errors, from quick inspection.

So there are three things out of the 13 listed that look like clear errors from a cursory inspection. Of course my quick analysis is subject to errors also.

But Runnells runs into another problem, and this one isn't his problem, it's FairMormon's. They won't commit to a single view of Book of Mormon translation, although most of their contributing members favor the received view. This received view, however, is extremely unlikely when the lexis and syntax of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon are taken into account. So Runnells doesn't get a clear position statement from FairMormon. It's a slippery position, and IIRC he expresses frustration at this somewhere in the letter.

The extremely likely position is that Joseph Smith didn't word the Book of Mormon, and that he didn't consult any Bibles during the dictation. An already prepared English-language text, with some of its language based on the King James Bible, was given to him, word for word. In other words, the Lord carried out the English-language translation, and this translation involved using the King James text as a base for lengthy biblical passages and using King James phraseology in many doctrinal sections. Although there were more than 800 changes made to lengthy King James passages before delivery to Joseph, it seems that not all of the errors were eliminated. We can see in the above list that errors may be of little consequence — such as standard-bearer ~ sick man — although it is in general good to have accuracy.

[USU78]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Nobody cares about Aquaman, though. Spiderman's apostasy was much more earth-shattering . . .  

Interesting take here on Spidey as nice nebbishy yet scrawny son of ethic Jewish parents in his original iteration [where I first met him when I purchased Spidey # 1 in another century]:

https://forward.com/culture/jewishness/375974/the-new-post-racial-spiderman-ignores-his-jewish-superhero-roots/

[rockpond]

The CES Letter patch is being removed from Spiderman's suit:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/marvel-scrubs-anti-mormon-reference-amazing-spider-man-1138358

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The CES Letter patch is being removed from Spiderman's suit:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/marvel-scrubs-anti-mormon-reference-amazing-spider-man-1138358

I just picked up four copies of the unedited version.  Apparently, its already been edited in their online edition, and all future printing runs of this issue will be with the CES logo edited out.  I had to call around to a few comic book stores to find them, but I finally got them.  This is my first copy of a comic book that I've ever bought in my life.  

Another cool thing, the store owner told me is that this artist lives in the area (SLC) and that he often comes into that store, so I guess its the closest comic book store to where he lives.  I was tempted to ask if I could leave my number and get the artist to sign one of the copies, but I didn't.  Fun stuff though.  

[Analytics]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I just picked up four copies of the unedited version.  Apparently, its already been edited in their online edition, and all future printing runs of this issue will be with the CES logo edited out.  I had to call around to a few comic book stores to find them, but I finally got them.  This is my first copy of a comic book that I've ever bought in my life.  

Another cool thing, the store owner told me is that this artist lives in the area (SLC) and that he often comes into that store, so I guess its the closest comic book store to where he lives.  I was tempted to ask if I could leave my number and get the artist to sign one of the copies, but I didn't.  Fun stuff though.  

It's definitely going to be a sought after collectors item.

I bought a copy of the comic on my Kindle, and it includes the CES Letter logo. I wonder if that will change if I download it onto other devices in the future?

For anyone interested how this fits into the story, the Isotome Genome Accelerator actually literally split Peter Parker into two different people--Peter Parker and Spider Man. When it did this, it also split their personalities. Now, Peter Parker is gloom and unambitious because Spider-Man got all of the wit and love of science. Meanwhile Spider-Man is a bit of a douchebag because Peter got the sense of morals and personal responsibility. So apparently in the Marvel Universe land, Jeremy Runnells actually paid Spider-Man to put that logo on his outfit. So it isn't that Spider-Man is an exMormon or endorses the CES Letter. Rather, Spider-Man accepted a corporate endorsement from Runnells.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's definitely going to be a sought after collectors item.

I bought a copy of the comic on my Kindle, and it includes the CES Letter logo. I wonder if that will change if I download it onto other devices in the future?

For anyone interested how this fits into the story, the Isotome Genome Accelerator actually literally split Peter Parker into two different people--Peter Parker and Spider Man. When it did this, it also split their personalities. Now, Peter Parker is gloom and unambitious because Spider-Man got all of the wit and love of science. Meanwhile Spider-Man is a bit of a douchebag because Peter got the sense of morals and personal responsibility. So apparently in the Marvel Universe land, Jeremy Runnells actually paid Spider-Man to put that logo on his outfit. So it isn't that Spider-Man is an exMormon or endorses the CES Letter. Rather, Spider-Man accepted a corporate endorsement from Runnells.

I have two copies, and two more in the works.

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's definitely going to be a sought after collectors item.

I bought a copy of the comic on my Kindle, and it includes the CES Letter logo. I wonder if that will change if I download it onto other devices in the future?

For anyone interested how this fits into the story, the Isotome Genome Accelerator actually literally split Peter Parker into two different people--Peter Parker and Spider Man. When it did this, it also split their personalities. Now, Peter Parker is gloom and unambitious because Spider-Man got all of the wit and love of science. Meanwhile Spider-Man is a bit of a douchebag because Peter got the sense of morals and personal responsibility. So apparently in the Marvel Universe land, Jeremy Runnells actually paid Spider-Man to put that logo on his outfit. So it isn't that Spider-Man is an exMormon or endorses the CES Letter. Rather, Spider-Man accepted a corporate endorsement from Runnells.

Thats an interesting question about your digital download.  Do you know if the copy is saved in the cloud on your actual device.  I'm wondering if they can push out a new copy without your knowledge that would override your existing copy?  

Thanks for the background on the Spider-Man narrative, I just learned some of that recently too as I really only follow the Marvel movies.  

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have two copies, and two more in the works.

I know nothing about collecting comic books, but have a uncle who has a collection worth tens of thousands of dollars (he's done it as a side business for years, appraises comic books for others and buys and sells copies that are collectible).  I asked him if he was buying up any copies of this he can find, and he said he's not interested in them and they won't be worth much because this wasn't on the cover but was an inside page.  It's all about the covers for those collecting, I guess?

Edited August 31, 2018 by JulieM

[smac97]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I know nothing about collecting comic books, but have a uncle who has a collection worth tens of thousands of dollars (he's done it as a side business for years, appraised comic books for others and buys and sells copies that are collectible.  I asked him if was buying up any copies of this he can find, and he said he's not interested in them and they won't be worth much because this wasn't on the cover but was an inside page.  It's all about the covers for those collecting, I guess?

Drat!  The guy at the comic book store said something similar.  

Oh, well.  It's just a few bucks.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Drat!  The guy at the comic book store said something similar.  

Oh, well.  It's just a few bucks.

We can always put them up for a fundraiser at FM conference if you are so inclined.  😛