Skousen Fireside in Cedar City

[_moksha]

by the way, feel free to take your lawn chairs. Might as well watch William Schryver reprise his role as the Giant Cricket in comfort. If you bring any Starbucks bottles in your cooler, make sure you keep them in a plain brown wrapper to not run afoul of any town ordinances. Enjoy the pageant.

[_sock puppet]

Interestingly, a member of our Stake Presidency let slip during one Sunday School lesson that he is currently studying the Book of Mormon using the original text, prompting some funny looks and the odd comment in jest.

Is he apostate?

I would have responded by asking where he learned to read reformed Egyptian.

Or by asking where he got a hold of the unabridged plates.

[_lulu]

- Daniel Peterson and his wife attended Schryver's ward a few weeks ago. She saw Peterson and Schryver talking on a couch in the foyer all during priesthood meeting.

When I was a practicing Mormon, I spent Priesthood Meeting attending Priesthood Meeting.

Go figure.

[_Drifting]

- Daniel Peterson and his wife attended Schryver's ward a few weeks ago. She saw Peterson and Schryver talking on a couch in the foyer all during priesthood meeting.

When I was a practicing Mormon, I spent Priesthood Meeting attending Priesthood Meeting.

Go figure.

Wards have couch's in the foyers these days...?

[_lulu]

- Daniel Peterson and his wife attended Schryver's ward a few weeks ago. She saw Peterson and Schryver talking on a couch in the foyer all during priesthood meeting.

When I was a practicing Mormon, I spent Priesthood Meeting attending Priesthood Meeting.

Go figure.

Wards have couch's in the foyers these days...?

LOL

I grew up in an old brick pioneer built ward house, the "foyer" had no couchs. Just places to hang your coats and for the men to put their hats. The women, of course, kept their hats on.

If they got rid of the couches, would the "intellectuals" participate more in class?

[_Garbo]

Did anyone else see this exchange of posts at MDDB?

DonBradley, on 26 June 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:
Will,

I really appreciate your checking with Royal on that and clarifying it here.

Best wishes in your Book of Abraham paper with him. Any idea when or where we might see that? These text-critical issues have huge implications for the larger issues of the Book of Abraham's origin and meaning. So, I'm pleased to hear that you and Royal are doing some further analysis together.

Don

Then Will wrote:

Well, as you know, recent events threw a wrench in the original plan.

But I've heard some rumors of new publishing alternatives, so I guess we'll see what develops on that front, and go from there. We'll be spending pretty much the whole day together tomorrow, and we'll be talking about that, among other things.

I can't believe Skousen and Schryver would actually be writing a paper together about the Book of Abraham. Is Skousen trying to commit scholarly suicide?

First Peterson. Now Skousen. What is going on here?



http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/581 ... 1209140341

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[_harmony]

It is all rather confusing, I have no idea why any of these men would be associating with Willard.

You can buy anything in this world with money.

Desperate measures for desperate times.

[_Garbo]

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 ...