Question for Don Bradley

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Bradley interview

Post by I Have Questions »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Jan 26, 2026 2:39 pm
I Have Questions wrote:
Mon Jan 26, 2026 11:23 am
I like how Don tries to distance himself and the current SLC LDS Church from the racism in the Book of Mormon by inventing “the Nephite Church”. He’s clearly gaslighting himself, and attempting to gaslight others. But it’s also an admission that the Book of Mormon can portray things as being from God, but which were just man made policies based on their culture etc. so that thinking can, and should be applied to all of its claims, not just the ones Don finds are out of alignment with today’s culture. I find Don’s Mormon “scholarship” intellectually dishonest, but I guess it has to be. It’s more disappointing because we know he knows he’s better than that.
It's a bit frustrating that he (a very likable person) has remained aloof and refuses to make an appearance seeing he's been a long time member of the board participating here since 2007 as _DonBradley and is a person of great interest for most readers here -- he is also a public figure and author. But he dodged the other thread and refused to answer a simple question posed by multiple posters and has avoided this thread like the plague.
Don likely knows that his apologetic positions don't hold water unless he is discussing them within a forum full solely of believers who won't challenge his thinking and opinions with awkward stuff like facts and evidence and logic. Has Don produced his promised book on Oliver Cowdrey? I cannot find anything more recent than 2016. We got this update in 2023
Bradley’s working on a book about Oliver Cowdrey’s relationship to the processes of revelation and translation. He’s also working on writing more about Joseph Smith.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Bradley interview

Post by Shulem »

I Have Questions wrote:
Mon Jan 26, 2026 2:48 pm
Don likely knows that his apologetic positions don't hold water unless he is discussing them within a forum full solely of believers who won't challenge his thinking and opinions with awkward stuff like facts and evidence and logic.

Don knows this board will challenge the faithful perspective in ways not experienced elsewhere. There is an incredible amount of talent and smart people on this board and there is not an apologist in the church that can come here and enjoy any measure of success in defending their narrative.

MG doesn't count for anything. He's nothing more than a troll that is playing games and wasting people's time, including his own, but he gets off doing it.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

Black is Beautiful
(But not to everyone)

Now, let's have a little fun by toying with Nephi's statement and imagine a kind of reverse psychology in order to see how a change of skin color by miraculous means ("Lord God did cause") proves how "skin of blackness" was not just a sign of the curse (as modern apologists claim) but *was* a curse that enabled an instant visual separation between Nephites and Lamanites who were cut off from Nephi and ultimately the presence of the Lord. Or in other words, the skin change was like a biblical plague (boils) suffered by the Egyptians who refused to free the Israelites. Thus the forceful infliction of boils on the Egyptians and a skin of blackness on the Lamanites by an angry God is nothing less than a curse in and of itself! They were seen as curses no matter how you dice and slice it!

2 Nephi 5 wrote:20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they wherefore we had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they we were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they we might not be enticing unto my people the Lamanites the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them us.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they you shall be loathsome unto thy people the Lamanites, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their your seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

So, from this example we see how Joseph Smith viewed a miraculous change of skin color from light to dark *was* a curse no matter how you look at it! The "curse" was two-fold:

(1) Skin of blackness
(2) Cut off from the presence of the Lord
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2017 wrote: Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of the Lamanites’ skin was only a mark or sign of the curse.

I'm reminded of the temple endowment wherein covenants are officially made via physical enactment, details of which cannot be discussed in this forum. But, I point out how the apologetic in the Teacher Manual seems to reflect what goes on in the temple in which the initiated (victim/pre-1990) makes a covenant and through that covenant there is a certain sign, token, and penalty that is physically manifested in order to ratify the Covenant.

The Lamanites were said to have broken their covenants and sacred bonds with Nephi who represented God's will. So, the curse described by Nephi is an alternate type of covenant between God and the Lamanites in which the penalty (skin of blackness) remains fixed so long as they are unrepentant. The Lamanite covenant became a curse and the "skin of blackness" was the sign or token of that curse and the penalty was they would be cut off from God and Nephi and remain a filthy dark-skinned people which was part of the penalty.

We are also given to understand that the Curse upon the Lamanites could be converted into a Blessing through means of a new Covenant:

3 Nephi 2:14-16 wrote:And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;

And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.


Don, what do you think of those parallels? The gloves are off, buddy. You've had more than enough time to explain yourself, so, like it or not, I'll do it for you.

:x
User avatar
bill4long
God
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:56 am

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by bill4long »

[double post]
Last edited by bill4long on Wed Jan 28, 2026 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
This space for rent - cheap
User avatar
bill4long
God
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:56 am

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by bill4long »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Jan 27, 2026 10:59 pm
I'm reminded of the temple endowment wherein covenants are officially made via physical enactment, details of which cannot be discussed in this forum. But, I point out how the apologetic in the Teacher Manual seems to reflect what goes on in the temple in which the initiated (victim/pre-1990) makes a covenant and through that covenant there is a certain sign, token, and penalty that is physically manifested in order to ratify the Covenant.
Shulem, the only covenant that really matters (and Joe was one smart cookie - I will not use specific temple terminology) is the one that essentially makes the initiate a slave to the Brethen™.

But it's not a cult. No! It isn't. /s

Follow your feelings, doubt your doubts, and let your "spiritual confirmations" lead you to obey! Obey!

The first order of Heaven is obedience [to the Brethren™] no matter what they say or do. That's a cult.
This space for rent - cheap
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

bill4long wrote:
Wed Jan 28, 2026 1:13 am
The first order of Heaven is obedience [to the Brethren™] no matter what they say or do. That's a cult.

That is the EGO -- the power trip -- the evils of Mormonism and every other dreaded religion.

Obedience is subjective and religion uses it as a trap for guilt, shame, and grief.

Mormon God is an ugly GODDAMN demon -- a piss-ant -- piece of crap. I rebuke it! Get behind me, Mormon God, you agent of dread!

But he/it does not exist except in the minds of stupid people who seem to feel they need something to worship. So, I need not rebuke it.

Silence is golden.

;)

luv ya too
User avatar
bill4long
God
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:56 am

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by bill4long »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Jan 28, 2026 1:41 am
bill4long wrote:
Wed Jan 28, 2026 1:13 am
The first order of Heaven is obedience [to the Brethren™] no matter what they say or do. That's a cult.
That is the EGO -- the power trip -- the evils of Mormonism and every other dreaded religion.

Obedience is subjective and religion uses it as a trap for guilt, shame, and grief.

Mormon God is an ugly GODDAMN demon -- a piss-ant -- piece of crap. I rebuke it! Get behind me, Mormon God, you agent of dread!

But he/it does not exist except in the minds of stupid people who seem to feel they need something to worship. So, I need not rebuke it.

Silence is golden.

;)

luv ya too
The thing about the Brighamites that astonishes me the most is they don't actually believe in the Book of Mormon. Only the parts that make them feel good. A couple of samples: the God of the Book of Mormon has been God from all eternity (Moroni 8:18 etc. See also D&C 20:17, D&C 76:4). The Book of Mormon Jesus tightly constained the doctrine to what he taught as stated in 3 Nephi 11:40. But Joe changed his mind and added doctrines, changed the nature of God, and contradicted the Book of Mormon.

If a human can say he believes in the Book of Mormon and completely overrides the clear statements, it tells me everything I need to know. I'm dealing with a person who cannot handle basic logic and linguistics. I would not hire a person like that. Or trust that person with anything important. It would be stupid to do so.

What won't they accept from their leaders?
This space for rent - cheap
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 2541
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by malkie »

bill4long wrote:
Wed Jan 28, 2026 1:53 am
Shulem wrote:
Wed Jan 28, 2026 1:41 am
That is the EGO -- the power trip -- the evils of Mormonism and every other dreaded religion.

Obedience is subjective and religion uses it as a trap for guilt, shame, and grief.

Mormon God is an ugly GODDAMN demon -- a piss-ant -- piece of crap. I rebuke it! Get behind me, Mormon God, you agent of dread!

But he/it does not exist except in the minds of stupid people who seem to feel they need something to worship. So, I need not rebuke it.

Silence is golden.

;)

luv ya too
The thing about the Brighamites that astonishes me the most is they don't actually believe in the Book of Mormon. Only the parts that make them feel good. A couple of samples: the God of the Book of Mormon has been God from all eternity (Moroni 8:18 etc. See also D&C 20:17, D&C 76:4). The Book of Mormon Jesus tightly constained the doctrine to what he taught as stated in 3 Nephi 11:40. But Joe changed his mind and added doctrines, changed the nature of God, and contradicted the Book of Mormon.

If a human can say he believes in the Book of Mormon and completely overrides the clear statements, it tells me everything I need to know. I'm dealing with a person who cannot handle basic logic and linguistics. I would not hire a person like that. Or trust that person with anything important. It would be stupid to do so.

What won't they accept from their leaders?
Some of them won't accept vaccines, or the wisdom of wearing a mask. They go ballistic, and declare Pres Nelson a fallen prophet. Other than that, though, ...
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Jan 28, 2026 1:41 am
....in the minds of stupid people....
bill4long wrote:
Wed Jan 28, 2026 1:53 am
It would be stupid to do so.

Of which I used to be one.

:?

Sad to say, but religion was once an important part of my life's mission and choices in order for me to experience what I wanted to experience. It was my choice and I am responsible for it.

But now, for over 15 years, I'm free! There is no guilt, no shame, and no sense of not measuring up to a man-made system of beliefs. I'm free to choose my own life and do what makes me happy.
Post Reply