Moksha Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) In Friday's, 10.2.2009, Wall Street JournalSource: online.wsj.com/article/SB200014240529702... Any thoughts on Professor Royal Skousen's new book? Edited October 4, 2009 by pam deleted article due to copyright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 I'd characterize it the same way I characterize Nibley: No desire to read it personally; but it's good to know that it's out there. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Do you have permission to copy and paste this since there is a copyright notice at the end of the article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Royal is my favorite Skousen. (In any other thread, that sentence would make absolutely no sense.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenamarie Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Royal is my favorite Skousen. (In any other thread, that sentence would make absolutely no sense.)It makes no sense to me. (and yes I read the article. am I missing something? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruthSeekerToo Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 I think it is great, so far. I got my copy on Amazon for a great deal. It is called The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text. It was about $23.xx and I bought some $2 tape to get free shipping. Yay! The front explains all about his method. I really like being able to see the original for some of the things that have changed. It flows a bit more the way it was written. There aren't any of our cross-references and such. Makes a nice reference for scripture study. If you want to read the BoM for the storyline this is a great way since there is nothing else on the page to distract you. I felt like I was peeking inside the process of how the BoM evolved in print. It won't replace my regular ol' BoM...more of a supplement. I think it is of more interest to historians and scholars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 It makes no sense to me. (and yes I read the article. am I missing something? )"Royal" Skousen, not "Cleon" Skousen (the latter's work is enjoying something of a renaissance, largely due to an endorsement from Glenn Beck). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenamarie Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Okay. I guess that's what you get when you don't watch TV. I'd never heard of Cleon Skousen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deseretgov Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Is "Royal" a first name? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted October 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 here is a taste of Cleon:The Atonement, by Cleon Skousen reperiendihe has also written some political books - 5000 year leap etc. etc. The above is one of my fave from him. I love the "little mother" story, I think it explains the atonement well. Don't forget The Naked Capitalist. excerpts from the book The Naked Capitalist a review and commentary on Carroll Quigley's book Tragedy and Hope by W. Cleon Skousen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 here is a taste of Cleon:The Atonement, by Cleon Skousen reperiendihe has also written some political books - 5000 year leap etc. etc. The above is one of my fave from him. I love the "little mother" story, I think it explains the atonement well.If one reads it, you find some interesting truths within. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 First mistake of assumption by the writer does not really know how people convert. It various among many of us converts but the same testimony sings the same tune. It is not only the belief on the Prophet Joseph Smith; it is matter if GOD talks to HIS children this day. Implying his textual thoughts being on the outside is a clear case of one owns lacking of understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ; even if he is a professor of religion. A clear example of mistakes found, is the amount of errors found in our own history book. So taking this as an example, there will be errors from the days of Nephi when rewriting his own history for exactness to the first copy of the Book of Mormon from printers setting up the type sets. It just happens. Even my own undertaking of several thousand pages of personal journal has it errors when I had to rewrite it. If the professor took the time to read the Book of Mormon for himself, he will walk away of amount testament of the Savior throughout the book. This is the message – another witness of Jesus Christ – in serving His other sheep. I hardly doubt this was the case of Church leaders not wanting this to be publishing…who was these church leaders? Implying something that has no names or linkage to the persons is unworthy journalism. There is no heartburn of truths and that we are fallible as humans. Again, what is the true intent of the Book of Mormon for us this day? If one can understand this simple implication, then you know why the book was saved for us and translated by a special dispensational prophet – it is for our edification, our salvation, and a testament that Jesus is the very Christ and begotten of the FATHER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.