I am glad this resource is available. I do have a few items of feedback though: 1. It's understandable that the print version uses only two colors, and that is probably to save money on printing costs. The print version uses standard, bold, italic, and highlight to distinguish between the 10 different hypothetical sources. However, there is absolutely no reason why an electronic version should be limited to just blue and green when it wouldn't affect the production costs at all to use 10 different colors to help the reader easily distinguish between the different sources. Is there some sort of contractual reason Logos didn't? 2. In the book, the P source and Dtr2 source are both bold blue text, but one is a sans serif font, and the other is a serif font. In this version, there is no difference between the two, so unless the reader is pretty well aware of where to find the two sources, it would be impossible to distinguish between the two. That's a pretty big oversight. That issue exists on Amazon as well, so I am guessing that's how the resource came to Logos, but it really needs to be fixed. The physical book I'd give a 3.5 out of 5 stars. Even if you don't agree with the documentary hypothesis, it is helpful to be familiar with it, and this book really helps lay it out. However, because there are only two colors, it is extremely hard to intuitively know which color plus font modifier (standard, bold, italic, highlight) means what. The electronic version, however, I'd give only 2.5 out of 5 stars (rounding up to 3) because of the font issue mentioned above for P vs Dtr2, and because there really is no good reason why there isn't an individual color for each source.

Most of the "reviews" for this product appear to me to be nothing more than smug, self-righteous statements that bring no one to Christ. Can you imagine if everything someone hears from Nicene Christians are statements of prejudice and condescension? We need a little more behavior like Jesus when he ministered amongst the Samaritans and a little less behavior like the Pharisees who had nothing but vitriol in their hearts for them (both Jesus and the Samaritans). People who fear this kind of information are like those who feared Porete, Wycliffe, Hus, Savonarola, Tyndale, Hubmaier, Servetus, Askew, Rogers, Willems, and countless others. Are people also afraid of the Islamic Studies Collection too? Or do they see it as a valuable resource to learn more about the beliefs of others, find areas of commonality, claim the good, and preach to correct things that aren't? While I am disappointed that the majority of these resources, if not all of them, appear to be in the public domain, and thus extremely dated, I look forward to having access to them in Logos. This package would be better if it included resources like "The Book of Mormon: Selections Annotated & Explained" by SkyLight Paths to have an academic review as well. By the way, calling the resource "Mormon Studies" instead of "Latter-day Saint Studies" is like calling a Roman Catholic resource "Papist Studies" or a resource on Islam "Mohammedan Studies". I don't know that I would call it offensive, but if you're wanting to have a respectful dialog, that's not how you do it.