Skousen Fireside in Cedar City

[_Kevin Graham]

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

What the hell kind of comment is that?

"K" is not a Hebrew letter at all. It is used in English to denote the "k" sound and it could be spelled either -k, -ck or -ch for English words, so it doesn't matter how it is spelled in Hebrew. And this guy is a linguist?

In any event, it is hardly lost on the biblical student that Zenoch is essentially the biblical name Enoch with a "Z" added to the beginning. Anyone trying to create a biblical sounding story would naturally make these kinds of spelling changes to give it that "ancient" feel.

Oh, and the Book of Mormon wasn't translated from Hebrew in the first place.

Skousen is turning out to be quite the nut-job here. I'd confine these stupid comments to firesides in rural Utah outskirts as well.

Why the non-English “if . . . and” complex conditional construction? Skousen thinks this a sign from God.

I've already shown why this is a piss poor argument to make. And anyone who is familiar with how languages work would never make this argument unless he was being intentionally misleading. I'm seeing that Schryver and Skousen may have much more in common than we originally assumed. They're both willing to lie for the Lord.

[_Chap]

The notes posted earlier don't seem to refer explicitly to the part of the talk referenced in Garbo's posts:

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?

That is the most bizarre part of the talk, in my view, and potentially the most worrying for many TBMs.

[_Kevin Graham]

The notes posted earlier don't seem to refer explicitly to the part of the talk referenced in Garbo's posts:

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?

That is the most bizarre part of the talk, in my view, and potentially the most worrying for many TBMs.

This isn't the first time Schryver has wandered off the reservation in search of relevancy for his existence. This is the same guy who argued quite adamantly that the plates were never required for the Book of Mormon translation.

[_Drifting]

Who is the person who supposedly did the translation 150 years prior to Joseph and what is the evidence for such a claim?

[_Chap]

The notes posted earlier don't seem to refer explicitly to the part of the talk referenced in Garbo's posts:

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?

That is the most bizarre part of the talk, in my view, and potentially the most worrying for many TBMs.

This isn't the first time Schryver has wandered off the reservation in search of relevancy for his existence. This is the same guy who argued quite adamantly that the plates were never required for the Book of Mormon translation.

Actually the words I quoted come from Garbo's account of what Skousen said. Though she did add this:

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.

It sounds like Schryver is simply following Skousen on this one.

Garbo - can you clarify at all?

[_Garbo]

It sounds like Schryver is simply following Skousen on this one.

Garbo - can you clarify at all?

The thing about the Book of Mormon being translated in the 1600s was what Skousen said in his talk. I just heard Schryver explaining it to some people afterwards. These were people who were waiting to talk to Skousen. But Schryver acted like he was quite an authority on the topic, and the people were satisfied with his answers and then left before talking to Skousen about it.

[_beefcalf]

Who is the person who supposedly did the translation 150 years prior to Joseph and what is the evidence for such a claim?

If I was a betting man, I would say this claim was specifically crafted to address the presence of 17th century English in a 19th century 'translation'.

Critics like me, taking the path of least resistance, suppose that the Book of Mormon is full of 17th century English because the author was inspired by (and plagiarizing from) a 17th century text: the KJV.

A true believer cannot accept such an argument and crafts this new one out of necessity. 'Someone must have done the translation in sixteen-seventy-something, cuz otherwise, how do we explain it?'

[_The Dude]

Who is the person who supposedly did the translation 150 years prior to Joseph and what is the evidence for such a claim?

If I was a betting man, I would say this claim was specifically crafted to address the presence of 17th century English in a 19th century 'translation'.

Critics like me, taking the path of least resistance, suppose that the Book of Mormon is full of 17th century English because the author was inspired by (and plagiarizing from) a 17th century text: the KJV.

A true believer cannot accept such an argument and crafts this new one out of necessity. 'Someone must have done the translation in sixteen-seventy-something, cuz otherwise, how do we explain it?'

Maybe they will go one step further and say that the striking language concordance between KJV Bible passages and Book of Mormon passages is because it was the same angel who inspired the translation of each, and he happened to like translating in 17th century English. Moreover, this theory is so great because it makes a prediction: when the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon gets translated you can bet that it will come out sounding like the KJV Bible/Book of Mormon/17th century English.

[_Drifting]

Perhaps the rock that Joseph found that was so useless at finding buried treasure but which worked perfectly well in translating plates that weren't present was the same rock that somebody had in the 17 th Century but they lost it or tossed it away only for Joseph to find it two hundred years later.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Those people are nuts.

Of course the Book of Mormon was translated 150 years earlier! It's the Book of Mormon equivalent of Q! See? That explains all the linguistic discrepancies! The Lord must've chosen someone else to bring forth the Book of Mormon, but he must've failed in his endeavor, and the Lord re-buried the plates and was to wait for spirit Joseph to take his mortal tabernacle and become the new chosen one. You know... Bring balance to the Force!

Sheesh.

- VRDRC