>That's a nice looking site. do you mind if I link to it from mine? It'll
be a
>while -- probably a couple of weeks before I update my site, but I'm
always
>collecting links like this. http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id3.htm
Sure, link all you want. I've also been linked to other apologetic sit
At 12:48 PM 9/30/2002, you wrote:
>At 11:00 AM 9/30/02 -0600 Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
> >Whatever happened to that? Now that you mention it, you don't hear much
> about Dr. Skousen these days (at least I don't).
>
>I've always assumed that his priesthood leaders asked him to "cool it,"
That's a nice looking site. do you mind if I link to it from mine? It'll be a
while -- probably a couple of weeks before I update my site, but I'm always
collecting links like this.
I've got two websites: The LDS Atlas of the World at www.gatheringofisrael.com,
but the one I'd include your link i
Have you read any of his books? They're very stimulating. I'd recommend his book
which is really a collection of his essays which were published in The
Improvement Era, the predecessor to The Ensign. It's called "Since Cumorah."
Another one which contains similar essays is a three-part book, "Leh
In his 90s, but I don't know exactly. He's still working on what will almost
certainly be his last book.
Paul Osborne wrote:
> >Mind you, this could be considered a narrow accomplishment by some, and
> if that's
> >the case with you, so be it. But that's his contribution, in my opinion.
>
> Than
True, but what can sometimes happen is that even the best of investigators are "young
shoots" and can be easily trampled upon, as it were, by exposure to anti-Mormon
material. That's where apologetics comes in -- it doesn't replace missionary work, it
just enhances it at appropriate times.
"Jo
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:41:57 -0600 "Marc A. Schindler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, I forgot to add. If you're interested in what's happened in the
> 27 years
> since the Joseph Smith Papyri: an Egyptian Endowment was published,
> try
> http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf a piece of schol
>Mind you, this could be considered a narrow accomplishment by some, and
if that's
>the case with you, so be it. But that's his contribution, in my opinion.
Thanks Marc. Although both of my parrents (now retired) went to BYU I
have never had any interest in that scene. The last time I mentioned
At 11:00 AM 9/30/02 -0600 Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
>Whatever happened to that? Now that you mention it, you don't hear much about Dr.
>Skousen these days (at least I don't).
I've always assumed that his priesthood leaders asked him to "cool it," since it is
inappropriate to have denom
At 11:43 AM 9/30/02 -0400 Elmer L. Fairbank favored us with:
>I'm currently (slowly) reading Approaching Zion. He's quite outspoken and
>(hopefully) makes one look into one's own inner life and (possibly) re-evaluate.
By all accounts that is probably his best book. I have not read it, but I h
At 08:36 AM 9/30/02 -0600 Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
>2) He started the trend to look into LDS doctrinal claims which could potentially
>be verified by history, especially by discoveries of writings after Joseph
>Smith's time which authenticate Joseph's claims, particularly in regards to t
>Is there a Nibley cult following too?
I honestly have wondered about that. Why is it that so many are wrapped
up in the writings of a college professor? What in the world am I missing
out on?
Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GET INT
Whatever happened to that? Now that you mention it, you don't hear much about Dr.
Skousen these days (at least I don't).
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> At 07:11 AM 9/30/02 -0400 Elmer L. Fairbank favored us with:
> >I have a deep respect for the insights of Brother Gileadi. Cult, not here, thank
At 07:11 AM 9/30/02 -0400 Elmer L. Fairbank favored us with:
>I have a deep respect for the insights of Brother Gileadi. Cult, not here, thank
>you. I don't agree with all of his interpretations, but he has given me information
>that helps me to real all of scripture with a better eye, looking
At 08:36 9/30/2002 -0600, M Marc wrote:
>Nibley's contribution is twofold, imo:
>
>1) He has inspired a whole new generation (or two) of scholars, by which I
>mean,
>at the expense of an oxymoron, "LDS secular" scholars like Truman Madsen, John
>Tvedtnes, Dan Peterson, and amateurs like Kevin Bar
Oh, I forgot to add. If you're interested in what's happened in the 27 years
since the Joseph Smith Papyri: an Egyptian Endowment was published, try
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf a piece of scholarship which is, imo, all
the more remarkable because it was written in two weeks by an amateur*
Nibley's contribution is twofold, imo:
1) He has inspired a whole new generation (or two) of scholars, by which I mean,
at the expense of an oxymoron, "LDS secular" scholars like Truman Madsen, John
Tvedtnes, Dan Peterson, and amateurs like Kevin Barney, Kerry Shirts, Barry
Bickmore, Mike Parker
Just out of curiosity, who's Robert K. Smith?
I think the value of Gileadi is threefold: 1) he produces an explanation of the
redaction of Isaiah which produces a unified Isaiah and therefore confounds the
normative secular scholarly assumption that there were 3 Isaiahs; 2) his
description of typ
>>Is there a Nibley cult following too?
Basically, I just stick with the scriptures. I have a boot leg copy of
Nibley's "Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri" and that is it. It is long
and boring and so riddled with references that it would take a hundred
years for me to check them.
Why is every
At 15:57 9/27/2002 -0800, BLT wrote:
>Amen! Surprisingly, those who most resemble your characterization are
>members of what I call the online Isaiah cult. They reverence the
>writings of Gileadi and some guy in SLC named Robert K. Smith above the
>teachings of the prophets.
I have a deep
Unfortunately John Pratt has been published in the Ensign and, fwiw, in Meridian, too.
Meridian I don't care about, but the Ensign -- that's a different story.
"John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> At 08:51 PM 9/27/02 -0600 Steven Montgomery favored us with:
> >>At 04:08 PM 9/26/02 -0600 Steven Montgomery
At 08:51 PM 9/27/02 -0600 Steven Montgomery favored us with:
>>At 04:08 PM 9/26/02 -0600 Steven Montgomery favored us with:
>>>At any rate John Pratt is merely building on a foundation first laid by the
>Christian Ministers E. W. Bullinger and Joseph A. Seiss. Bullinger's work, "Witness
>of the
At 05:50 PM 9/27/2002, you wrote:
>At 04:08 PM 9/26/02 -0600 Steven Montgomery favored us with:
> >At any rate John Pratt is merely building on a foundation first laid by
> the Christian Ministers E. W. Bullinger and Joseph A. Seiss. Bullinger's
> work, "Witness of the Stars" can be found online
I'm not a Pratt apologist, but Pratt did not invite only 144 people, that
is incorrect. I received an invitation myself, but do to distance and a
whole lot of other things going on couldn't attend. Pratt does not have a
"following" any more than he does when he invites those interested in
astr
At 02:41 PM 9/27/2002, you wrote:
>Mark Gregson wrote:
> >
> > > I found Eric
> > > Samuelson's criticism a bit harsh, but this was probably to be expected
> > > as
> > > he knew little about it going in. I see his program as no more strange
> > > than
> > > for a backyard gathering of amateur a
At 05:49 PM 9/27/02 -0600 Steven Montgomery favored us with:
>No more bizarre than some ward road-shows I've seen . I think you need to cut
>this guy some slack--he's a teacher and got a program together with like-minded
>individuals--what's wrong with that? Maybe he has a flair for the dramatic
At 08:41 PM 9/27/02 + Tom Matkin favored us with:
>I have to confess that my mind was drawn to the wonderful Isaiah passage
>about "wizards who peep and mutter" as I read the review.
>"To the law and to the prophets" is where we should turn, as we are
>sternly reminded by Isaiah, not to peop
At 02:34 AM 9/28/02 +0800 Mark Gregson favored us with:
>Any way you slice it, the "program" was bizarre. Why the heck would anyone want to
>present "information" in that style? (you can't use the temple as a reason because it
>is real and authorized).
>
>I believe that all rational LDS would h
At 04:08 PM 9/26/02 -0600 Steven Montgomery favored us with:
>At any rate John Pratt is merely building on a foundation first laid by the Christian
>Ministers E. W. Bullinger and Joseph A. Seiss. Bullinger's work, "Witness of the
>Stars" can be found online at http://philologos.org/__eb-tws/defa
At 04:08 PM 9/26/02 -0600 Steven Montgomery favored us with:
>I'm a fan of the truth, not necessarily John Pratt. Yet, In the spirit of Moses 6: 63
>I have found much of John Pratt's research to be valid and based on the truth. I
>admit that some of John Pratt's research is in the area of specul
At 03:24 AM 9/27/02 +0800 Mark Gregson favored us with:
>Most of my glimpses of the bizarre subculture have not been while I have been a
>bishop.
>
>I have noticed that the male version of subculture weirdness tends towards the John
>Pratt style i.e. esoteric "doctrine" whereas the female versio
At 06:25 PM 9/26/02 + Stephen Beecroft favored us with:
>I agree, and I think (to quote Homer, the great American philosopher)
>it's funny because it's true, or perhaps it's funny because it isn't me.
>Except that I suspect that almost all of us really do have an "inner
>gnostic", and that
At 12:34 PM 9/27/2002, you wrote:
>
> > I found Eric
> > Samuelson's criticism a bit harsh, but this was probably to be expected as
> > he knew little about it going in. I see his program as no more strange
> than
> > for a backyard gathering of amateur astronomers--which is what John Pratt
> >
At 01:28 AM 9/27/02 +0800 Mark Gregson favored us with:
>I can guarantee that those involved in various subculture weirdness do not pay
>attention to the scriptures and the Brethren. They may read and they may listen but
>they are deliberately sifting for what they want to hear. What I cannot
A rite is a rite is a rite. He performed a rite, basing it several
things, including the restored gospel. Performance art does not normally
include a rite as such. He doesn't seem to be an artist, rather a student
of the esoteric. There's a huge difference. Inviting only 144 people
does not denot
Mark Gregson wrote:
>
> > I found Eric
> > Samuelson's criticism a bit harsh, but this was probably to be expected
> > as
> > he knew little about it going in. I see his program as no more strange
> > than
> > for a backyard gathering of amateur astronomers--which is what John
> > Pra
> I found Eric
> Samuelson's criticism a bit harsh, but this was probably to be expected as
> he knew little about it going in. I see his program as no more strange than
> for a backyard gathering of amateur astronomers--which is what John Pratt
> is. Here is an excerpt from what John Pr
Stephen Beecroft:
Oh, that I were a bishop, and could get the inside scoop
on all the bizarreness of the Church membership!
___
No need to be a bishop. Just ask them outside of Church.
(Preferably not in the parking lot and not during Sunday
School.) Act interested and they'l
At 04:26 PM 9/26/2002, you wrote:
>At 04:08 PM 9/26/02 -0600 Steven Montgomery favored us with:
> >As you can see, the program was "symbolic" and openly stated that it is
> based on his "own interpretation." Beside, I find John Pratt's research
> and viewpoint that the stars, planets, constellat
At 04:08 PM 9/26/02 -0600 Steven Montgomery favored us with:
>As you can see, the program was "symbolic" and openly stated that it is based on his
>"own interpretation." Beside, I find John Pratt's research and viewpoint that the
>stars, planets, constellations and calendar systems act to bear r
At 01:57 AM 9/26/2002, you wrote:
>Interesting post on AML Tuesday, which you can read in the AML archives
>at
>http://www.xmission.com/pub/lists/aml-list/archive/v01.n839
>
>I know that Steven and a couple others are John Pratt fans. I find his
>writings to be extreme left-field stuff (except for
At 03:24 AM 9/27/02 +0800 Mark Gregson favored us with:
>> Oh, that I were a bishop, and could get the inside scoop on all the bizarreness of
>the Church membership! On the other hand, maybe not.
>
>My experience is that most members don't share that sort of thing with the bishop.
>Again, being
"Marc A. Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, it's Saturn that's in the telestial kingdom; its rings are composed of all
>tthe lost singlesods d
---
Gosh, I hope I don't resemble that remark. ;-)
/Sandy/ at Saturn in Spring Hill, Tenn.
A Different Kind of Company. A Different Kind of Car
> Oh, that I were a bishop, and could get the inside scoop on all the bizarreness of
>the Church membership! On the other hand, maybe not.
My experience is that most members don't share that sort of thing with the bishop.
Again, being an Edmonton area bishop might be different than a Utah
-Mark-
> >1) Pratt's wife sang 'Yo Ho, that I were an Angel."
>
> Did she really? Or was it "Oh, that I were an Angel"?
She sang it with an eyepatch and a snarl.
> >4) Angels came back and pronounced individual blessings on us.
>
> If this was theatre, okay, I guess. If not, this is definitely
>1) Pratt's wife sang 'Yo Ho, that I were an Angel."
Did she really? Or was it "Oh, that I were an Angel"? If it was "Yo Ho" then the
weirdness is also twisting into mangling songs.
>4) Angels came back and pronounced individual blessings on us.
If this was theatre, okay, I guess. If no
No, it's Saturn that's in the telestial kingdom; its rings are composed of all
tthe lost singlesods d
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> Interesting post on AML Tuesday, which you can read in the AML archives
> at
> http://www.xmission.com/pub/lists/aml-list/archive/v01.n839
>
> I know that Steven and a
Interesting post on AML Tuesday, which you can read in the AML archives
at
http://www.xmission.com/pub/lists/aml-list/archive/v01.n839
I know that Steven and a couple others are John Pratt fans. I find his
writings to be extreme left-field stuff (except for his puzzles, which
are pretty cool,
48 matches
Mail list logo
