I’ve corrected the italicized text and the bold italics of the pdf. file, so that all the former spacing problems are now fixed. (I had to go into the html of the online book and manually correct all of the errors in it. It was time-consuming, but worth it. The text now looks right sugar baby profile new mexico.) So, I’ve made an updated pdf. file which has all the fixes in it. If you have the previous copy, please delete it and download the new update (Update 1.)
If you still find any typos or other errors in this chapter, please bring them to the attention of one of the collaborators so we can correct them. Thanks.
One last thing, if you wish to comment or give feedback on this GEMTAM chapter, feel free to use the comments section of this post.
This is my response to the chapter. I had the first version on my Kindle, so I will probably repeat some of what you already knew as far as typos go.
p. 2. “consumation”–>“consummation” p. 3. “If Solomon had 300 wives, the Father has more.” This argument seems to fall a little flat, kind of like, “If Billy has acne, then Jesus has more acne.” That’s facetious, but I think that the argument in this section (Plural Marriage in Heaven) needs some work to stand up still. For one thing, perhaps Solomon had 300 wives, and will have 300 wives in the resurrection, and receive them if he and they achieve the celestial kingdom. But a comparison on a numerical basis doesn’t necessarily fulfill the scripture.
p. 5. If it is the current prophet’s words that matter, and you think the current prophet is fallen, or not fulfilling his calling, or without authority (or that there is no current prophet), then the logic here becomes circular and you become your own prophet. (And that’s okay, but I think you should spell out exactly what your position is here.)
p. 19. In the absence of divine revelation on what the `holy anointing’ is, exactly, I think it’s better to not assert that it /is/ a specific thing, especially when oil is not involved.
p. 27. `Only when viewed in the manner, under tribal filters, does concubinage make any sense.’ This is only true if you accept the definition given above. It’s obvious that certain leaders of the church have considered a concubine to be a different thing today than perhaps it was anciently. Cf. D. Michaal Quinn on George Q. Cannon: “In a Temple meeting of the First Presidency and the Apostles in 1894 George Q. Cannon said, `I believe in concubinage,’ by mutual vow as a way for men and women to bypass the Manifesto’s prohibition of new plural ceremonies. George Q. Cannon wanted to marry a new plural wife after his wives were no longer able to bear children, and in aTemple meeting of the Apostles and Presidency in August 1900, he openly opposed Lorenzo Snow’s ban on new plural marriages. He threatened President Snow directly in front of all the others, that he, President Cannon, might choose just simply to cohabit with a woman, without a ceremony of marriage if that was necessary to father any more children. ”