Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

[ChelC]

Conspiracy mongering - doesn't that basically mean he pushes conspiracy theories (a fishmonger sells fish)... well, I'd say guilty as charged there. He spoke out tirelessly about conspiring men.

Extremist - Depends on the observer and whether or not they believe what he had to say.

I know it was intended as an insult to write him off as a nut... but I would definitely call him conspiracy mongering. By my definition of extreme I'd say that assessment is off.

On a side note, I recently found out that my aunt used to work with Skousen as a secretary for the Freeman Institute when she called me up ready to storm the capitol.

[creator]

BrianM: Have you found a copy of the condemning McKay letter to BYU??

Not yet. I've been in contact with Ken Bowers who has the letter, and the letter is somewhere in his storage, so it might be a while.

[LDSNZ]

Thanx for your posts Brian.

Open Letter to Detractors of W. Cleon Skousen and His Works". (click the link to read it)

The links in this: ....

Previously this same modern-day Prophet, David O. McKay, endorsed Skousen’s book, The Naked Communist, in LDS General Conference (1), and so did another Prophet, Ezra Taft Benson, on multiple occassions. (2) (3) (4). President McKay had also asked Skousen to write the book.

.... aren't operative.


Looks like the owner of ldslibrary.com has deliberately disabled them? As the words: "Naked Communist" don't even come up anywhere on his/her/their site!

I also don't think it's right for him/her/them selling General Conference talks!

[Paul Skousen]

Great discussion, thank you for the wonderful comments. I'm sorry I got in so late. Some of my comments go back to the very beginning,

My father's PhD was not from George Wythe College (not the REAL one, that is!). His law school at George Washington University determined that those who had earned law degrees "back in the day" had performed on the same level as more recent graduates who were being awarded Doctor of Laws degrees. Out of the blue one day that notification arrived in the mail, stating that his degree was being reissued as a PhD.

Jeffrey Rosen's article in the New Yorker: Rosen interviewed me over the phone for an hour, mostly about Mormonism. I could hear the keys clicking away as he took notes while I talked. He didn't get into the issue of Skousen being rejected by the Church, etc. Had he asked I would have told him that letter from the First Presidency asking the Freeman Institute NOT to use the Church to further that cause FIRST went to dad for review. I found the marked-up version in his journals. He made a couple of suggestions to soften the hit on supporters but also to firm up protocol when using Church resources and access to promote the seminars. Dad mailed those corrections back and that's how it was printed. He was frustrated by the zealous enthusiasm some supporters showed by breaking rules in Church and other places to promote the program. His newsletters to supporters contained requests to please avoid abusing opportunities. He was grateful the First Presidency took that initiative and included him in the loop.

At home dad expressed disappointment about jealousy among the other professors. They were so kind to him face to face, so supportive and encouraging. They'd engage in discussion on doctrinal issues and dad thought there were good friendships built. And then the backbiting and gossiping and negativity would sometimes get back to him. It was always disappointing. He knew he was walking on egg shells with some after Pres. McKay intervened so dad could use his own books as texts, but the problem was, the other texts were not very good. At one Religion Department meeting, Skousen was challenged by somebody because all his students were getting mostly A's. Dad brought in one of the tests and gave it to those other religion professors. Not ONE of them got an "A." From that point forward they stopped criticizing him of being "too soft."

More in a second ....

[Paul Skousen]

Cleon versus Max: Dad loved his brother (dad was the eldest among his siblings, and there did exist some typical jealousy that many families experience when the oldest excels at something and others try unsuccessfully to "catch up" .... did that make any sense?).

Anyway, Max was looking for his own answers, his own approach, and his own followers. He wrote "How to Pray and Stay Awake," but it was largely rewritten by dad and though greatly improved and published that way, the fact Max couldn't communicate as effectively as his older brother contributed to, in my own personal opinion, a schism between them that never healed and only became worse. When Max wrote "Going Beyond the Mark," dad took hours to show where Max had gone contrary to revealed answers, scriptures and history. Dad's personal copy of that book is in the basement and has markings throughout and EVERY page has dad's scribbled notations on it, or has clipped to it a note or page or index card listing the problems and false doctrines. Max was excommunicated, rebaptized and excommunicated again. He was a very great man, eloquent speaker, he improved as a writer, published several more things, a lot of people enjoyed him a great deal and their lives were improved because of him. I loved being around Uncle Max. He died outside the church but I bet by now those issues have all been resolved and he's busy doing missionary work along with the rest of the family. Max's problems with the Church is frequently, as has been mentioned, mis-applied to Cleon.

A note on Naked Capitalist. That little book is not easy reading for some people, and one of the reasons (aside from perhaps not appreciating what Quigley actually stated) is that dad didn't want to be accused of taking things out of context. That's why he made the quotes so long, sometimes too long for some to see the point, but long enough to show that Quigley actually said what he said.

Another thing dad told me one time is that all he was trying to do was be a good reporter of things he learned, things that might be beneficial to others. Many of these gems were extremely difficult to "mine" out of original sources ... and for the labor of getting it out for others to see, for simplifying the messages so they could be understood more easily, he was criticized for being simplistic and under-studied. It was, in fact, the opposite. He was often better read-in on core subject matter than other "experts," and they didn't like having to talk across to this man who didn't even have the appropriate degree as THEY did in this subject or that. It's not that dad knew everything, it just meant he was always asking questions and dug down deep for the answers, sometimes deeper than "experts" themselves. All he really wanted was an exchange of information and enlightenment, not a clash of egos as others took it to be. He enjoyed learning new things and fitting new pieces into the puzzle, and therefore was willing to challenge people who stood on cardboard platforms and wanted to debate him when he knew they didn't stand on rock. And in his special unique and usually loving way, he'd point out the flaw in their position, hopinig they could or would illuminate him on something maybe he had missed. I loved that spirit about dad, forever the patient, humble and forgiving Teacher ... unless somebody wanted a fight.

[Rincon]

Removed

[EmmaLee]

Thanks for sharing your first-hand experience and insights in regards to your father, Paul; it is appreciated! My brother was well acquainted with Cleon and in turn, taught me. All of Bro. Skousen's books are on our bookshelves, and they are well-used from much reading. He is missed.

[Mark]

Jeffrey Rosen's article in the New Yorker: Rosen interviewed me over the phone for an hour, mostly about Mormonism. I could hear the keys clicking away as he took notes while I talked. He didn't get into the issue of Skousen being rejected by the Church, etc. Had he asked I would have told him that letter from the First Presidency asking the Freeman Institute NOT to use the Church to further that cause FIRST went to dad for review. I found the marked-up version in his journals. He made a couple of suggestions to soften the hit on supporters but also to firm up protocol when using Church resources and access to promote the seminars. Dad mailed those corrections back and that's how it was printed. He was frustrated by the zealous enthusiasm some supporters showed by breaking rules in Church and other places to promote the program. His newsletters to supporters contained requests to please avoid abusing opportunities. He was grateful the First Presidency took that initiative and included him in the loop.

I appreciate this explanation Paul. So often people who are clueless as to what really has happened will try to pit popular authors and lecturers involved involved in the freedom arena like your father up against church leadership in trying to stir the pot and create divisions. I am sure that your Dad was very supportive of the desires of church hierarchy in not allowing abuses to occur as you have verified was the case. Some who become zealous in things political feel that their desires to spread the word supersedes the wishes of church leadership and they will take advantage of any situation to do so. Your dad seemed like a humble man who would have been willing to be submissive to the directions and desires of leadership and that is a testament to his goodness.

[HeirofNumenor]

Welcome Paul Skousen! I was wondering if I'd ever see you in here! :ymparty: :ymhug:

[LDSNZ]

... Paul,

Awesome, thanx heaps for sharing.

Kindest regards

P.S The only kool book I have of your dad's is "Naked Communist".

[pritchet1]

I tried to find my ramblings regarding Cleon Skousen elsewhere on this forum, so I would not have to repeat my past performance. I took the "Constitution Course" at the feet of Cleon Skousen while I attended BYU-Provo. I know I learned more from him in his Book of Mormon classes and at the Freeman Institute than I did in any other classes at BYU on and off campus.

I had the opportunity to voluntarily help set up and publish a few issues of the "Freeman Report" back in 1975-76 :ymapplause: , which was a format I later attempted to use in my own monthly publication (sum of past experiences), which was shut down in June 2010, under inspiration from God.

Because of my very positive experiences with Cleon Skousen (and his son who edited the "Freeman Report"), I feel that is why I was hired by Sterling Allen (who ran the PatriotSaints website) to work on his PESWIKI project, until my knowledge of the gospel cymbol banged up hard against his tinkling brass Environmentalism. :-s

I wish there were more Cleon Skousens today.

I found him to be a valiant spirit. He spoke so carefully, so as not to be misunderstood or for his discussions to be misconstrued. I loved how he shared his testimony of and his love for the gospel and the Christ.

[lundbaek]

I'm a latecomer to this thread. I was never a full-time student at BYU, having done my engineering degree at Tufts University near Boston. But while living in Provo I did take classes on a part-time basis as I had time. For about a year and a half, August 1970 - February 1972 I rented a room in the basemsnt of Dr. Skousen's house at 747 N, 1250 East. I was aware that The Freeman Institute was being organized during that time. In December 1971, as I was paying my rent and visiting wtih Brother Skousen, I told him I expected to be leaving, and I was considerng going to work for the CIA. He asked me why I wanted to work for the CIA. I told him first, I want a diffferent, better paying job than what Provo had to offer, and second, I'd like to do some good for the country. He replied that I'd be "doing more good for the other side", they were so "infiltrated". I don't remember the details of our discussion beyond that, but it turned out he was right. Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames sure demonstrated the truth of that, didn't they.

I must add that it was during that time that I first learned that President McKay had requested of Dr. Skousen (and apparently of a few others) that he organize something to teach people about the US Constitution and the dangers to it. It was his daughter Julianne, who lived upstairs with her husband Glenn Kinber, who first told me of that. Since then his sons David and Paul had given me more details of that.

[BroJones]

Are they any like Cleon Skousen at BYU-Provo today?

I met with Dr. Skousen in Oct 2005 at his home, presented my 9/11 research at that time -- he was very receptive and encouraging. He said I needed to talk about the "implications" and not just the scientific evidence.

But less than a year later, I was placed on "administrative leave" and my classes taken away. it was in the SLC and Provo newspapers because it was announced very publicly by BYU. Three months after my "early retirement," VP Richard Cheney was honored at BYU Commencement with an Honorary PhD for "public service."
And now I have heard that another Professor at BYU and a dear friend, 9/11-savvy also, has been placed on administrative leave, and not allowed to teach at this time. This was done quietly, however, not in the newspapers... and he doesn't want his name out publicly as he fights for his "tenured" position... He is quite well known, a full professor as I was, and he has taught at BYU Education Week on campus (as I also did for a few years).

I really don't know what's going on there -- some think that monied donors have a big influence -- who knows?

[lundbaek]

Interesting that Dr. Skousen suggested that Dr. Jones talk about the "implications" of 911 and not just the scientific evidence. Understandable that Brother Skousen would make that suggestion, because the "implications" would probably be more easily understood by most people, and perhaps there is a greater need for understanding of the "iimplications". Personally, however, I appreciate the discussions of scientific and technical evidences of an inside job.

[Matthew.B]

BYU professors and wannabe intellectuals resent him because:

1) he was appointed a religion professor by President David O. McKay who said the Church doesn't have any real scholars of religion who are LDS (BYU had to hire non-member professors). This was a HUGH insult to the religion department (not sure how Nibley, Madsen, Sperry, et. al. took this), which led directly to lies told to Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith about the doctrinal correctness of Dr. Skousen's books. This has led to a belief in the Church that Dr. Skousen's teachings are NEVER to be mentioned in church talks & lessons, and some members will walk out of sacrament meeting and other classes if he is mentioned.

2) He is resented because while he obtained a law degree, he became a professor ONLY because the Prophet appointed him, rather than he having to go the traditional route of graduate student, teaching assistant, Master's degree (thesis defense), Ph.D. program (dissertation defense), instructor, associate professor, assistant professor, full professor (tenure track), etc. He is resented for being called "Dr." In 1994, George Wythe College (now University) awarded Cleon Skousen the Chancellor's degree - recognition for having done enough research and publishing to be granted 6 Ph.D's in different fields. BYU has only 2 chancellor degree holders: Karl Maeser and Hugh Nibley.

This is gold.... HeirofN, do you have any evidence for hese? I find myself in a discussion of Cleon's "Atonement" talk on another forum with a learned member of the faith, and I feel it may go the way of "Well, the modern prophets have discounted Brigham Young's teachings". I'd like evidence to show that the modern prophets specifically endorsed Skousen in his professional capacity. Looking myself as well, but I don't have much time on the internet anymore and I wouldn't know where to start.

[Jason]

BYU professors and wannabe intellectuals resent him because:

1) he was appointed a religion professor by President David O. McKay who said the Church doesn't have any real scholars of religion who are LDS (BYU had to hire non-member professors). This was a HUGH insult to the religion department (not sure how Nibley, Madsen, Sperry, et. al. took this), which led directly to lies told to Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith about the doctrinal correctness of Dr. Skousen's books. This has led to a belief in the Church that Dr. Skousen's teachings are NEVER to be mentioned in church talks & lessons, and some members will walk out of sacrament meeting and other classes if he is mentioned.

2) He is resented because while he obtained a law degree, he became a professor ONLY because the Prophet appointed him, rather than he having to go the traditional route of graduate student, teaching assistant, Master's degree (thesis defense), Ph.D. program (dissertation defense), instructor, associate professor, assistant professor, full professor (tenure track), etc. He is resented for being called "Dr." In 1994, George Wythe College (now University) awarded Cleon Skousen the Chancellor's degree - recognition for having done enough research and publishing to be granted 6 Ph.D's in different fields. BYU has only 2 chancellor degree holders: Karl Maeser and Hugh Nibley.

This is gold.... HeirofN, do you have any evidence for hese? I find myself in a discussion of Cleon's "Atonement" talk on another forum with a learned member of the faith, and I feel it may go the way of "Well, the modern prophets have discounted Brigham Young's teachings". I'd like evidence to show that the modern prophets specifically endorsed Skousen in his professional capacity. Looking myself as well, but I don't have much time on the internet anymore and I wouldn't know where to start.

President Monson's remarks at his funeral certainly endorse him imo....as well as their long history.

[HeirofNumenor]

You won't find direct and overt endorsement...other than Pres. Monson's remarks at Dr. Skousen's funeral (unless there is something Pres. Benson said that I am not aware of). Maybe Elder Hartman Rector jr. could.... Also, one of Dr. Skousen's sons gave me info...plus his son-in-law Glen Kimber (though both could be seen as conflict of interest). And I have my direct observation of how BYU faculty and LDS intellectuals regarded him - alone, or vis a vis Hugh Nibley...

One thing though....he was extremely spiritual and loving....and in all he said and wrote - he NEVER said anything negative about the LDS Church leadership or institution, or about the people as a whole...he never set himself up as a light or standard...it was always study the scriptures, and follow the prophets & apostles - especially the current ones...

[pritchet1]

HeirofNumenor - My experience exactly!

[HeirofNumenor]

Thank you Matthew.B, Jason, and Pritchet1 ! :ymhug:

[moonwhim]

I attended BYU from 72-74 and was quite amazed at all of the liberal professors that I encountered.....in many different departments too. Even back then I had an understanding of the conspiracy to destroy America. I had read many of the books and articles from the John Birch Society. I joined the Church the summer of 1970 and was impressed with all the material in the BofM on secret combinations, plus the statements about it by the Prophets and Apostles at the time. So when I attended BYU I was expecting that most of the Profs would be citing the same stuff......boy was I wrong.....found out quick that it was not much different than the schools that I had attended in Calif. But I was thankful for Cleon Skousen, I attended his religion classes and also the Freeman Institute. And by then Verlan Andersen had published his "Many Are Called But Few are chosen, which was available in the BYU bookstore." Not many of my fellow students were interested in what Skousen or Andersen had to offer. Sad.

[lundbaek]

It can be frustration at times to be considered a conspiracy nut and/or Constitution freak. Personally, I find it challenging to even be around people who support things that contribute to the undoing of our country, including socialism, illegal immigration and amnesty, government welfare including foreign aid and bailouts, undeclared and aggressive wars, etc. Brother Skousen was a master at dealing with criticism and hostility.

[pritchet1]

Moonwhim, I just missed you there then. Darn! 1975 was my time there. And I too was rather put off by the "liberal" professors at BYU-Provo. I was just turned off by them. Perhaps I was rather naive and didn't know better, I guess, but the Spirit didn't get me into wrong paths and kept me on the correct courses. I spent most of my time in Hebrew dance and doing dance performances and participating Army ROTC and playing Mormon Battalion weekend (Friday night -Saturday) war game activities as an ROTC Ranger. Frankly, I learned more at the Freeman Institute than I did on campus, except for perhaps Bro. Skousen's fantastic Book of Mormon courses! I still have those student manuals!

[pritchet1]

Skousen was like Reagan. He knew how to engage people by telling relevant inspirational stories that were faith-promoting experiences.

[AGStacker]

Paul Skousen -

Thank you very much for writing about your father. Your father is a hero of mine. I love this man yet I have never met him. I recognize his genius regarding doctrine and the Constitution. I was able to buy a book of your father's concerning prophecy that was signed by him. It may seem strange to you but it means something to me. I have no doubt where your father is at this time.

With that said, were there other books of your father that your family will be publishing in the future? I have read "The Cleansing of America" and thought I read that there are more books unpublished. Also, concerning the ten tribes, I know that your father mentioned that they possibly could be on another planet. I have researched this myself and it is clear that the early prophets of this dispensation said that they are in fact separated from the known inhabitants of the Earth. I wanted to know if your father ever considered the theory that the Earth is hollow and that the tribes existed in the hollow?

Thanks again,
Vince

[LukeAir2008]

..."Skousen, a Mormon who died in 2006 at 92, was for years dismissed by many mainstream conservatives, including William F. Buckley Jr., as a conspiracy-mongering extremist; he was also eventually criticized by the Mormon Church."...

Interpret it as you will, but I wouldn't say Skousen was criticized by the Church... but this is the reason people say that the Church distanced from Skousen...

In a letter “[t]o All Stake Presidents, Bishops, and Branch Presidents in the United States,” the First Presidency issued a statement that read:

“It has come to our attention that in some areas announcements have been made in Church meetings of lectures to be given by those connected with the Freemen Institute. This is to inform you that no announcements should be made in Church meetings of these, or other similar, lectures or events that are not under the sponsorship of the Church.

“This instruction is not intended to express any disapproval of the right of the Freemen Institute and its lecturers to conduct such meetings or of the contents of the lectures. The only purpose is to make certain that neither Church facilities nor Church meetings are used to advertise such events and to avoid any implication that the Church endorses what is said during such lectures.”

(letter from the Office of the First Presidency, Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, 15 February 1979)

It was President David O Mckay who gave Bro. Skousen the mandate to teach the Constitution but stressed that it must be done through an independent organization not affiliated in any way with the LDS Church.

I believe this was for two reasons. First, so as not to invoke the wrath of the establishment against the Church...Secondly, to not alienate the many Americans who are not members of the Church but who needed to be taught Constitutional principles.

Cleon Skousen was a great, great man loved by those who truly love freedom and who love the truth.