Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Hasa Diga Eebowai
_Emeritus
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

Post by _Hasa Diga Eebowai »

-
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_Hasa Diga Eebowai
_Emeritus
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

Post by _Hasa Diga Eebowai »

-
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

Post by _SteelHead »

Ok call me dense.... But how does one scholarly conduct research and produce a paper that is basically the equivalent of using biblical textual analysis to prove that Adam has a belly button?
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Hasa Diga Eebowai
_Emeritus
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

Post by _Hasa Diga Eebowai »

-
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Cicero
_Emeritus
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:09 am

Re: Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

Post by _Cicero »

Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:I have no idea if Don was trying to shoehorn Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon into an ancient Israelite context, but it came across that way to me on reading his presentation. There is obviously more to Don's work than a FAIR presentation and people like yourself who are familiar with him and his work are impressed by him. I look forward to considering the book when it comes out and I in no means was attacking Don as a scholar. I simply said that for a number of reasons I wasn't as impressed by Don's FAIR presentation as other people apparently are.


That is how I read it too (i.e., the shoehorn) and I am certain that many in the FAIR audience (as well as our own Nightlion) interpreted it that way as well. I will look for the book when it comes out.
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

Re: Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

Post by _DonBradley »

Nightlion,

That was so cool hear! I hope my book will offer even more good stuff for you to chew on. :)

Don
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

Re: Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

Post by _DonBradley »

All,

I appreciate the various compliments and the interest in my work on this topic.

The criticisms of my presentation offered here are noted, and some of them I agree with.

Other of the criticisms don't seem useful for me. Criticism, at its best, gives us a clearer view of ourselves. But some of the criticisms laid out here don't so much provide a mirror in which I can see or reconsider the imperfections of my work as they do a mirror in which, hopefully, the critic can see and reconsider his own imperfections. For instance, does displaying a willingness to criticize ad nauseam without first having any clue what one's target is trying to do reflect more on deficiencies in the thought of the criticized, or on those in the thought of the criticizer? Similarly, take the case of someone showcasing their inability to comprehend what is and is not possible, much less desirable, for an LDS scholar summarizing complex textual work in a 40-minute presentation to fellow Latter-day Saints who have come to hear an interesting account of scholarly findings and their apologetic implications. If the critic zaps the scholar for not meeting the critic's own absurd expectations in this endeavor, on which of these two does that criticism reflect badly?

Finally, suppose a someone relies heavily on models from biblical scholarship, such as the documentary hypothesis, using them in supposed objection to work reconstructing contents of the Book of Mormon's lost text, and then labels any effort to reconstruct the lost Book of Mormon text "quixotic at best." Considering that much of biblical criticism, including work on the documentary hypothesis, is the reconstruction of lost texts, who does this objection leave looking like a fool--the scholar extending such work by reconstructing elements of missing Mormon texts, or the one embracing reconstructions of hypothetical sources from 2500-3000 years ago while poo-pooing efforts to reconstruct an unquestionably real source source from 180 years ago? Documentary hypocrisy anyone?

I began writing a post here to put my FAIR presentation in the context of my larger work on the lost 116 pages, to show what some might have overlooked about the presentation and to describe the fuller exposition they might expect in the book. But since my time is clearly better spent writing the book itself than writing here about the book, from here forward I'm making the better choice--to invest my time and efforts there. I think they'll find its methodology and framing well justified there, and its evidence and arguments laid out quite effectively. But that will be for them to decide then.

Cheers,

Don
_Hasa Diga Eebowai
_Emeritus
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

Post by _Hasa Diga Eebowai »

-
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Aristotle Smith
_Emeritus
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

Post by _Aristotle Smith »

Don,

Three things, and then I'll drop out of this conversation.

The first thing I noted in my post was the preliminary nature of your remarks. My impression was that this was not a scholarly publication, hence I viewed it at mostly a friendly critique of a very rough draft. Since "friendly critique" usually ends up being an oxymoron, this was probably foolish on my part.

Second, I restricted my comments to parts of the presentation related to the Old Testament, since that's what I know something about. I also avoided comments on 19th century sources because I know my ignorance in that area and it would be foolish to comment. This has lead to many comments that I did not get the overall thrust of the article and am nit-picking at peripheral issues. I can only comment that a substantial portion of your presentation touched on Old Testament issues and the critique was of those portions.

Finally, please go right ahead and ignore my critiques. I think it opens your ideas to an entire range of solid critiques and creates even more anachronisms for Mormon apologists to deal with. Since I am usually labeled a critic, having left the LDS church, I guess I should be happy about that.
_Hasa Diga Eebowai
_Emeritus
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

Post by _Hasa Diga Eebowai »

-
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply