Interview With Don Bradley.

[I Have Questions]

That's a valuable and interesting insight. I agree that it is disingenuous. Religions do not provide an answer to the ultimate question. Religions provide complex theories based on nothing other than a need to justify the existence of their organisation. And it is fair to say that science has answered the ultimate question, but Don and others don't like the answer, so they opt for something irrational and call it faith. And the fact is that science has answered the question about Mormonism's claim of authentic origins, again not the answer Don wanted to hear so he has to ignore it, reframe the evidence or the question.

Look I get that a hope for an afterlife gives people comfort and hope in this life. But once that hope becomes institutionalised in an organised religion it becomes poisoned and tribal and open to being abused. Jesus himself taught against organised religion.

It's ironic that the church, allegedly built on truth and to offer spiritual comfort, relies on dismissing verifiable evidence to preserve its own survival.

Yes. The line “some things that are true aren’t useful” is damning. It really shows that Mormonism isn’t interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Oaks himself has said that not telling the whole truth is not the same as lying. What a pretzel he is making of personal integrity.

[MG 2.0]

It's ironic that the church, allegedly built on truth and to offer spiritual comfort, relies on dismissing verifiable evidence to preserve its own survival.

Yes. The line “some things that are true aren’t useful” is damning. It really shows that Mormonism isn’t interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Oaks himself has said that not telling the whole truth is not the same as lying. What a pretzel he is making of personal integrity.

That is an important insight based on your own perception/experience to add to the mix. Although you might have to go elsewhere from this point on to see what else is in the mix.

Thanks IHQ. You fit in here quite well. This brings peace and harmony to the board when friction may arise...but will probably not. I should, and do, apologize for any grief I've caused you in the past. You have a world view that ought to be respected and valued. Even when it comes to the church.

May I say without stepping on ideological toes, that I am one who is also concerned with truth along with you? But it might be best to stop there or we could end up going places that I'm unwilling to go. I have made promises and commitments.

Others will more than likely add to this conversation as they support your viewpoint.

Sunshine and lollipops to you and the board administers! Large group at this point.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

That's a valuable and interesting insight. I agree that it is disingenuous. Religions do not provide an answer to the ultimate question. Religions provide complex theories based on nothing other than a need to justify the existence of their organisation. And it is fair to say that science has answered the ultimate question, but Don and others don't like the answer, so they opt for something irrational and call it faith. And the fact is that science has answered the question about Mormonism's claim of authentic origins, again not the answer Don wanted to hear so he has to ignore it, reframe the evidence or the question.

Look I get that a hope for an afterlife gives people comfort and hope in this life. But once that hope becomes institutionalised in an organised religion it becomes poisoned and tribal and open to being abused. Jesus himself taught against organised religion.

It's ironic that the church, allegedly built on truth and to offer spiritual comfort, relies on dismissing verifiable evidence to preserve its own survival.

The thing the Church is based on, its keystone, is a lie. Joseph Smith and the Church (and the book itself) claims that The Book of Mormon is 100% a translation of an ancient record. A record etched onto gold plates more than 1,500 years ago. Whatever it is, it isn’t that. There is objective, indisputable evidence that proves it’s not that. The plagiarism of the KJV Bible condemns The Book of Mormon from within. There is no other conclusion to reach other than The Book of Mormon is not what it, Smith, and the Church today, claims to be. Sure, you can delude yourself about that, but that’s what you have to do.

[MG 2.0]

It's ironic that the church, allegedly built on truth and to offer spiritual comfort, relies on dismissing verifiable evidence to preserve its own survival.

The thing the Church is based on, its keystone, is a lie. Joseph Smith and the Church (and the book itself) claims that The Book of Mormon is 100% a translation of an ancient record. A record etched onto gold plates more than 1,500 years ago. Whatever it is, it isn’t that. There is objective, indisputable evidence that proves it’s not that. The plagiarism of the KJV Bible condemns The Book of Mormon from within. There is no other conclusion to reach other than The Book of Mormon is not what it, Smith, and the Church today, claims to be. Sure, you can delude yourself about that, but that’s what you have to do.

There have been a lot of conversations dealing with the Book of Mormon on this board over the years. Rather than beating a dead horse I will refer to just two of those I participated in:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=101259&p=1524815&hi ... s#p1524815

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=100830&p=1516037&hi ... s#p1516037

There are actually whole bunch of threads that deal either partially or completely with truth claims and the Book of Mormon. I only spent five-ten minutes hitting on a few from way back.The Book of Mormon always comes to the forefront when discussing whether or not the CofJCofLDS is God’s church.

I think we ought to be careful about stating and/or coming to the conclusion…no questions asked…that the Book of Mormon is not what it purports to be. LONG and detailed conversations have been had on this board. Many of those involved are long gone. Boy, were they a joy to talk to. Things have unfortunately changed.

There wasn’t the vitriolic content we have seen here for too long. It is what it is and probably won’t change. I made a number of entreaties leading that direction yesterday with less than hopeful responses. I’m still hoping for change.

I’m sure that no one will actually spend any time with these blasts from the past. I only spent a few minutes. Long enough, however to see that we really had some good conversations about the Book of Mormon and other truth claims. This was back before many of the current board participants were around I think. Someone can correct me on that if I’m wrong.

Shades was here!

There was a degree of respect for all. Poisoning the well was more or less nonexistent.

Those were the days my friends I thought they’d never end we talk and chat forever and a day…and then things crashed. Now you have to be Board Certified and follow Free Speech Rules and be subject to Board Nannies.

Some of the older threads from years ago make me wish for a better time. I’m still hopeful.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

I only spent five-ten minutes hitting on a few from way back

I think this encapsulates one of your main issues as a board participant.

[MG 2.0]

I only spent five-ten minutes hitting on a few from way back

I think this encapsulates one of your main issues as a board participant.

Possibly so. I didn’t see any need to spend more time than that. Maybe you could be more clear as to why I should have in this instance? What more would have been accomplished for the purposes of my post?

I do appreciate any honest and sincere input that is detached from any certain agenda.

Thanks Gadianton. I think you’re an honest broker most of the time. But none of us, including myself, are always perfect in this regard, right?

Thank you for your continued patience. My guess is that in many conversations and discussions held every day throughout the world people are cutting each other some slack and being forgiving for perceived faults.

They don’t have to be the main focus, do they?

If your response necessitates it, I will take what you’ve said under consideration.

Best.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

It's ironic that the church, allegedly built on truth and to offer spiritual comfort, relies on dismissing verifiable evidence to preserve its own survival.

The thing the Church is based on, its keystone, is a lie. Joseph Smith and the Church (and the book itself) claims that The Book of Mormon is 100% a translation of an ancient record. A record etched onto gold plates more than 1,500 years ago. Whatever it is, it isn’t that. There is objective, indisputable evidence that proves it’s not that. The plagiarism of the KJV Bible condemns The Book of Mormon from within. There is no other conclusion to reach other than The Book of Mormon is not what it, Smith, and the Church today, claims to be. Sure, you can delude yourself about that, but that’s what you have to do.

It is noteworthy that the Church itself avoids any explanation of the plagiarised KJV Bible content found verbatim within The Book of Mormon. It daren't grasp that nettle for the obvious reason that acknowledging the plagiarism's existence automatically refutes what the book claims about itself, what Smith claimed about it, and what the Church still claims about it - that it is 100% a translation of plates containing an ancient record from 1,500 years ago. And you cannot argue that it isn't plagiarism, because it's not only verbatim, it also copies exactly some errors that were made when producing the KJV Bible, and even copies the syntax that was used by the people producing the KJV Bible.

You will not find any official Church acknowledgement nor explanation of this problem. The silence is deafening.

[Shulem]

The thing the Church is based on, its keystone, is a lie. Joseph Smith and the Church (and the book itself) claims that The Book of Mormon is 100% a translation of an ancient record. A record etched onto gold plates more than 1,500 years ago. Whatever it is, it isn’t that. There is objective, indisputable evidence that proves it’s not that. The plagiarism of the KJV Bible condemns The Book of Mormon from within. There is no other conclusion to reach other than The Book of Mormon is not what it, Smith, and the Church today, claims to be. Sure, you can delude yourself about that, but that’s what you have to do.

It is noteworthy that the Church itself avoids any explanation of the plagiarised KJV Bible content found verbatim within The Book of Mormon. It daren't grasp that nettle for the obvious reason that acknowledging the plagiarism's existence automatically refutes what the book claims about itself, what Smith claimed about it, and what the Church still claims about it - that it is 100% a translation of plates containing an ancient record from 1,500 years ago. And you cannot argue that it isn't plagiarism, because it's not only verbatim, it also copies exactly some errors that were made when producing the KJV Bible, and even copies the syntax that was used by the people producing the KJV Bible.

You will not find any official Church acknowledgement nor explanation of this problem. The silence is deafening.

The KJV in the Book of Mormon is a smoking gun as much or more as the Book of Abraham. It's absolute proof that clearly demonstrates how Joseph Smith was using the Bible as his means to perform his operation in creating fiction through 19th century storytelling, compliments from a want-to-be prophet.

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt the Book of Mormon is a lie. I know it absolutely! Pure knowledge! Pure intelligence! Pure power!

Amen.

[MG 2.0]

The thing the Church is based on, its keystone, is a lie. Joseph Smith and the Church (and the book itself) claims that The Book of Mormon is 100% a translation of an ancient record. A record etched onto gold plates more than 1,500 years ago. Whatever it is, it isn’t that. There is objective, indisputable evidence that proves it’s not that. The plagiarism of the KJV Bible condemns The Book of Mormon from within. There is no other conclusion to reach other than The Book of Mormon is not what it, Smith, and the Church today, claims to be. Sure, you can delude yourself about that, but that’s what you have to do.

It is noteworthy that the Church itself avoids any explanation of the plagiarised KJV Bible content found verbatim within The Book of Mormon. It daren't grasp that nettle for the obvious reason that acknowledging the plagiarism's existence automatically refutes what the book claims about itself, what Smith claimed about it, and what the Church still claims about it - that it is 100% a translation of plates containing an ancient record from 1,500 years ago. And you cannot argue that it isn't plagiarism, because it's not only verbatim, it also copies exactly some errors that were made when producing the KJV Bible, and even copies the syntax that was used by the people producing the KJV Bible.

You will not find any official Church acknowledgement nor explanation of this problem. The silence is deafening.

It might be worth noting that if one takes the time to do some research there are scholars/apologists that have not ignored this particular conundrum. It has also been discussed before on this board. I would expect more than once.

Sources are a available for further study

There is no definitive "smoking gun' on this issue. I'm saddened when 'soundbites' are used as definative proof but I don't fault those that go this route. It is easy and quick.

I would simply recommend to others that you do your own research and dig deeply.

My two cents.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Don Bradley is one of those that can be used as a resource. He has done his homework...beyond sound bites.

Regards,
MG