Don Bradley Dares to Challenge Will Schryver

[_moksha]

I for one would be very interested in a conventional translation of the Kinderhook plates. I suspect they contain the script from the very first episode of Prairie Home Companion and if Joseph knew about this then... this make Don Bradley's presentation a must see.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. O,

"Nomad" is an open account sock puppet that a few different users access from time to time. However, it's obvious Mr. Schryver uses it more than others. Syntax is a bitch, my friend.

V/R
Dr. Cameron, NC for Me

[_Themis]

[Lets hope for the best. I haven't heard much about fanny alger now on this forum.

Did some one solve Joseph's adultery with Fanny?

I think that the bigger problem is for such work to reach a wide audience and enlist a discussion. At times, there can be some censure of such material if it rocks exmo testimonies of any given subject.

CFR I always see you making assertions which are wrong.

[_Yoda]

Has Don's work regarding Fanny and Joseph been published? I know that is another project he was working on.

I would love to read it. Don, if you have a link, or information on how to order it, please provide the information here.

Thanks! :-)

[_Blixa]

Has Don's work regarding Fanny and Joseph been published? I know that is another project he was working on.

I would love to read it. Don, if you have a link, or information on how to order it, please provide the information here.

Thanks! :-)

Here you go liz.

[_lostindc]

anyone know why Ron Bradley came back to the fold? Is there a link to the story if there is a story?

[_Buffalo]

These days, when Will is forced to post exclusively under his Nomad sock puppet, will be known as "The Exile" to future generations of Will worshipers.

[_Mike Reed]

Repost from other thread:

For what it is worth... I wouldn't call Don's work on the Kinderhook plates an apologetic piece. Yes... he is presenting it at the FAIR conference, and hence, it has been judged to have apologetic value. But what he will present could just as well appear at a MHA or Sunstone conference. Although many LDS will find apologetic value in portions of my book (when it is finally published... sigh), I am pretty certain critics will find portions useful as well. I think such will be the case for Don's FAIR paper too. Personally, what I am excited about is that Don's presentation will finally move the discussion forward for all sides involved in the dialogue.

[_Kevin Graham]

My understanding is that Don has always acknowledged Will's contribution to the discussion, but never completely agreed with the argument as it was sketched out in Will's FAIR presentation. This is nothing new, and it has not changed because of Don's re-baptism. I think it is a healthy thing that FAIR is open to a variety of perspectives, expressed in a respectful way. It has never been my impression that Don has anything against Will. If anything, in my conversations with Don, he has tried to temper my view of Will and help me understand Will better.

It will be interesting to see the possible implications Don's Kinderhook findings have for Will's theory.

And this is why people like Will have such problems with decent folks like Don Bradley and David Bokovoy. They will applaud Wilbur for his efforts throughout every stage of his research, and then politely disagree with his conclusions while thanking him for his contributions. But William Schryver cannot tolerate even this! It gnaws at his ego so much, because he really does believe he is that important. Respectful disagreement he cannot stand. If you do respectfully disagree, he'll at the very least haunt you with implicit insinuations that you're on the edge of apostasy. Others have been bombarded with private emails where Will tries to convince them they're wrong for disagreeing (he has done this to me as well as others who have shared with me their correspondence with him). When it comes to his theories, he thinks he is so important of a player and his arguments so significant to the defense of the faith, that all LDS members are expected to jump in with both feet on either one side or the other. You're with him or against him. This explains his aggression towards Bokovoy and Bradley, both of whom have repeatedly stated they respect Will's efforts and hope he continues. Despite these public expressions of support, he has chosen to make enemies of these guys. These kinds of people are rare, which is why I think Nomad's constant knee-jerk defense of WIlbur (when no offense has been given) is further proof they are one and the same.

It is kinda sad to see what has become of Wilbur, but he brought it on himself. Talk about becoming irrelevant to the debate! Now that the MHA conference has passed, the biggest blow to Schryver was perhaps the presentation by Clinton Bartholomew who dealt with all the Masonic evidence Wilbur had tried using to support his ridiculous "Egyptian didn't really mean Egyptian" theory.

Mike Reed provided an abstract of his presentation:

"Joseph Smith grew up in a Masonic household with a father, brother, and several uncles who were Freemasons. Recently it has been suggested that two Mormon documents include characters from a masonic cipher known as a Royal Arch cipher. The first document is a letter written by W.W. Phelps to his wife that contains a revelation about the name of God in Adamic. The second Mormon document to contain putative Royal Arch characters is the Egyptian Alphabet. Evidence identifying the characters in these documents as Royal Arch cipher characters will be provided including an explanation of why Joseph Smith associated the specific characters with their selected meanings. This presentation will provide an in depth discussion of the Royal Arch cipher and its legendary history and the content of the Royal Arch degrees in which it was taught. Freemasons in Joseph's day thought that the Royal Arch cipher dated not only back into antiquity to the days of King Solomon, but that these symbols were part of the Adamic written language first invented by Enoch. After the flood the Egyptians were believed to have inherited this Egyptian script and that it was, in part, the basis for their hieroglyphic language. Finally, the presentation will provide the context of Joseph Smith's use of these putative Royal Arch characters and show the content of these prophetic productions was intimately linked with the Masonic legends and the Rituals of Royal Arch Masonry and Joseph Smith's search for the Masonic Universal Language."

This flies in the face of Will's silly claims and wild interpretation of the date that ignores so much context. In fact, this abstract is essentially what I argued in response to Will Schryver's hyped up FAIR presentation last year, so it appears William is no longer spearheading scholarly work on this matter. William has indeed become irrelevant.

[_Yoda]

Has Don's work regarding Fanny and Joseph been published? I know that is another project he was working on.

I would love to read it. Don, if you have a link, or information on how to order it, please provide the information here.

Thanks! :-)

Here you go liz.

Just to be clear...even though Don is not the main author, his contribution appears in this book?