Skousen Fireside in Cedar City

[_Chap]

Please tell us more! When you think you've heard everything, something like this comes up.

The theory you outline sounds crazy enough to make one suspect that Skousen produced it in collaboration with Schryver. Was anything said that might indicate that?

[_Drifting]

The fireside was interesting. I wasn't aware, beforehand, that Skousen is actually quite the orthodox/fundamentalist when it comes to the translation of the Book of Mormon. He actually believes, for example, that Joseph Smith read words off of a rock in a hat and read them out loud. He believes that the words were given exactly the way Smith read them, and that even the bad grammar was "revealed" on the rock Smith read them off of. The direct quotes from the KJV? They were words that appeared on the rock and Smith read them and his scribes recorded them, word for word.

Skousen says that Joseph Smith didn't even have (or own) a Bible when he was translating the Book of Mormon. He says there is evidence of this and that he didn't own a KJV Bible until Cowdery bought one after the Book of Mormon was translated.

Let's see .. what else ...

The words appearing on the rock weren't even from the 19th century, but from the 16th and 17th century. He said that the Book of Mormon was actually translated about 150 years before Joseph Smith was born and that the translation done in about 1600 A.D. was "delivered" to him in 1829. I don't really understand that, but it is what he said. I"m sure I didn't misunderstand. That is what he said: the Book of Mormon was translated 150 years before Joseph Smith was born! Huh? Is anyone else aware of this argument and do you understand it better than I did?

Anyway, I'll try to make sense of my scribbled notes and report more tomorrow when I get a chance.

Oh, one other thing. The second question he was asked in the Q/A was why he published his book through Yale and if the "Brethren" approved of his work. He responded that he did it through Yale so it would get out faster than if he'd tried to do it directly through the church. Something like that. He also said no, the "Brethren" do not endorse his work, but they don't disagree with it. They are very aware of it, but they don't officially endorse it and he doesn't know when or if the errors he has discovered will be fixed in the official Book of Mormon.

More tomorrow if I have the time ...

Didn't Grant Palmer et al get disciplined for this kind of thing?

[_Garbo]

Please tell us more! When you think you've heard everything, something like this comes up.

The theory you outline sounds crazy enough to make one suspect that Skousen produced it in collaboration with Schryver. Was anything said that might indicate that?

Well, Schryver was there of course. He played the organ for the opening song and then sat on the front row with his wife. As soon as the Q/A started, Schryver, in an almost authoritative tone, asked Skousen to clarify something he had said about certain Hebrew-type constructions being in the Book of Mormon text. Skousen seemed a little miffed, but dutifully did as he was told and explained the issue a little more for the audience. Afterwards, I was just kind of lurking around those who were asking Skousen questions, and I overheard Schryver explaining to a group of people the whole deal about the translation really having happened in the 1600s, and that the Book of Mormon contained language that was already archaic by the time Joseph Smith was born.

Then I watched and listened as he (Schryver) was telling the counselor in the stake presidency about how he and Skousen were co-authoring "a series of articles" about something or other (I missed what the topics of the articles were supposed to be). The stake president asked Schryver how he got involved in all of this and Schryver answered something like "the Lord works in mysterious ways".

by the way: I was surprised to see how many people were there. The chapel in the stake center was pretty much full to capacity. Probably around 200 people or so.

[_harmony]

Afterwards, I was just kind of lurking around those who were asking Skousen questions, and I overheard Schryver explaining to a group of people the whole deal about the translation really having happened in the 1600s, and that the Book of Mormon contained language that was already archaic by the time Joseph Smith was born.

Someone needs to tell the prophet. I'm pretty sure he doesn't know this, and neither does the Correlation committee.

[_ludwigm]

Afterwards, I was just kind of lurking around those who were asking Skousen questions, and I overheard Schryver explaining to a group of people the whole deal about the translation really having happened in the 1600s, and that the Book of Mormon contained language that was already archaic by the time Joseph Smith was born.

Someone needs to tell the prophet. I'm pretty sure he doesn't know this, and neither does the Correlation committee.

One more thing he/they do(es)n't know?

Or do(es) he/they know it, only do(es) he/they know if we teach it?


Phoeeeyy!
In Hungarian, that above would be simple sentences without "()"s and "/"s...

[_Drifting]

Afterwards, I was just kind of lurking around those who were asking Skousen questions, and I overheard Schryver explaining to a group of people the whole deal about the translation really having happened in the 1600s, and that the Book of Mormon contained language that was already archaic by the time Joseph Smith was born.

Someone needs to tell the prophet. I'm pretty sure he doesn't know this, and neither does the Correlation committee.

I can't help but think of the discipline metered out on people like Grant Palmer and John Dehlin for speaking the historical truth. Surely Skousen and Schryver should receive similar treatment for this fireside and (soon to be published....*yawn*...) written piece of work?

[_Chap]

Afterwards, I was just kind of lurking around those who were asking Skousen questions, and I overheard Schryver explaining to a group of people the whole deal about the translation really having happened in the 1600s, and that the Book of Mormon contained language that was already archaic by the time Joseph Smith was born.

Someone needs to tell the prophet. I'm pretty sure he doesn't know this, and neither does the Correlation committee.

The pinned topic on this event on the MADboard still has no posts following Schryver's notification of the event, which was accompanied by a detailed discussion of appropriate hymns to choose (Schryver played the organ).

And that's it. It's as if nobody is interested wants to discuss what Skousen actually said.

I wonder why?

[_harmony]

The pinned topic on this event on the MADboard still has no posts following Schryver's notification of the event, which was accompanied by a detailed discussion of appropriate hymns to choose (Schryver played the organ).

And that's it. It's as if nobody is interested wants to discuss what Skousen actually said.

I wonder why?

Fear is such a wonderful tool.

[_Dr. Shades]

Dear community:

The following are notes from the fireside that were taken by someone who was in attendance. An anonymous informant passed them along to me, which in and of itself is rather out of the ordinary, since Doctor Scratch is usually the one to whom people with inside information go, not me.

Nevertheless, here they are in their complete and unedited form, copied-and-pasted verbatim:

-----BEGIN-----

Royal Skousen fireside, “Recovering the Original Text of the Book of Mormon,” West Enoch Stake Center, 7pm July 1, 2012,
Critical Text Project begun in 1988
–provides a history of the text
–allows reader to “judge” (the meaning here of critical) which reading is preferred
2 Goals
1. Recover original English text
2. Study and collate printed editions
–Joseph read off a device or instrument @ 25 - 30 words at a time
–scribe would read it back before moving on
–2 devices or instruments: Nephite interpreters (2 clear stones, later called “Urim & Thummim”) and a seer stone
Original, dictated manuscript, only 28% of which remains
Printer’s manuscript, a copy made for typesetter John Gilbert (at E. B. Grandin’s shop)
Only one text inspired by the Lord; Joseph saw it, but humans have erred in its transmission In 1837, Joseph standardized the grammar (“a kind of translation”)
The Project studies 20 printed editions: 15 LDS, 4 RLDS, and the N.Y. Wright ed.
O MS placed in Nauvoo House cornerstone in 1841 as part of a time capsule
In 1882 Bidamon began giving away parts of the O MS, 25% of which is now in the LDS Archives
In the 1930s, Wilford Wood gathered the remaining fragments, and stored them in a vault in Bountiful.
Skousen obtained those frags from the Wood family in Sept 1990, and had them conserved by several BYU (Roman Catholic) conservators. Some frags not from O MS, but some are:
II Ne 6 - 7 frag from Isaiah is closer to KJV than the current Book of Mormon. Oliver apparently tried to get the dictation right, but made many changes, as at 7:5,
“the Lord God hath opened mine ear” (correct) > “the Lord God hath appointed mine ear” (mistake)
UV light makes it very clear here.
The typesetter used the O MS when the P MS was taken to Canada to obtain copyright (Helaman 13 to end of Mormon).
–the P MS was used 5/6 of the time.
–had the O MS been used all the time, fewer errors would have been made.
The LDS Church conserved the P MS for the RLDS (CoC).
Oliver and Joseph made changes in the P MS.
–volume 3 of the Critical Text Project lists the grammatical changes (in process).
–vol. 4, in 6 parts, establishes what is the original text through discussion and comparison of the data.
The Earliest Text (Yale Univ. Press, 2009) is Skousen’s edition of what he believes Joseph saw. –thus getting the jump on publishers antagonistic to the Church
–presents the text in “sense lines” as equivalent to Joseph’s dictation
–verse numbers in margin
–much easier to read
loss of parallels
Omni 28 “a strong and a mighty man” (1852), second “a” removed in later eds.
“Caractors”
–not actually the Anthon Transcript (the one taken by Martin Harris to Professor Anthon) –rather a momento
–no one has been able to translate it
3 Translation Theories
–loose control
–tight control (correct)
–iron-clad control (wrong), in which observers claimed that scribe could not continue until the line copied correctly, but this only applied when Joseph spelled it out, and perhaps only when requested.
Conclusions
–no errors in the Book of Mormon which change doctrine or the narrative story – despite mistakes.
–no Hebrew name can be spelled with -ck at end, yet P MS has -ck, as at Alma 33:15, Zenock is lined through and replaced with Zenoch (an immediate correction in same line). –witnesses correct to say that Joseph spelled words out, as at Helaman 1:15, Coriantummer, which is lined out and replaced in same line with Coriantumr.
–shows that Joseph was getting actual words, rather than ideas
Helaman 12:13-21 (7xx), Moroni 10:4 “if . . . and” (and removed in 2nd ed.) is definitely not English
Examples of archaic English (before 1600) in Book of Mormon, Enos 18 “required” = request
Mosiah 3:19 “but, if” = unless, except (1920)
Alma 37:37 “counsel” = counsel with (1920), consult
Book of Mormon is in early modern English
“thus ended” > “thus endeth” (4xx by typesetter, but most remain as original & systematic)

quotation (I Ne 1:8 PAlma 36:22)
Other readings:
I Ne 8:31 O MS “prssing” (always “pressing” elsewhere) > P MS “feeling” I Ne 12:18 O MS “sword” (always elsewhere in Book of Mormon) > P MS “word”
Proof iron-clad theory of translation is no good:
I Ne 7:5 O MS “hole hole” (= “whole household” as at Alma 22:23) > P MS “household” (not fully correct)
Alma 39:13 O MS “acknowledge . . . repair that wrong” (correct reading and doctrine calling for reparations, cf. Mosiah 27:35, Helaman 5:17) > P MS “retain” (bad reading due to ink drops on page) > “acknowledge your faults” (1920)
------------------------------------------------------
Q&A
Why the non-English “if . . . and” complex conditional construction? Skousen thinks this a sign from God.
About KJV: KJV seems to be the base text in quotations, but Joseph did not have access to such a Bible during translation (he did not have one in Harmony, PA, even if he had one back home). Maybe the Lord used KJV as a base text. The Lord can choose . . .
One reading even from the Coverdale Bible of 1530s.

-----END-----

[_Drifting]

What are the key differences between what Skousen delivered as facts at this fireside and the story the Church officially propogates?