Don Bradley Dares to Challenge Will Schryver

[_Doctor Scratch]

Thanks to a very helpful "tip" from an old informant, I was directed to a very interesting thread at the ironically named Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board. Some may be aware of this, but the recently re-baptized Don Bradley has been hyping his own forthcoming FAIR paper on the Kinderhook Plates. He has said that his paper will at last lay to rest any criticism of the affair as it pertains to Joseph Smith's prophetic abilities.

But that's not what interests me for the time being. Instead, I would urge readers to begin on page three of the thread, where Don, tag-teaming w/ NackHadlow, dares to challenge the fullness of Will's KEP work:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/544 ... ge__st__40

Here's hoping this year's "Game Changer" has more staying power than last year's.

Count on it.

Will's presentation was, I think, fascinating. But it was also incomplete, not answering all the questions it needed to answer to provide a complete theory, and was not fully able to persuade nonbelievers of good will. This one will do both.

Don

Obviously, in the World of Will, such disrespect simply will not stand:

I agree that Don Bradley has done some very good work, and I look forward to his FAIR conference presentation.

But why would you take a swipe at Will Schryver in this thread about Don's presentation?

I've been waiting for anyone to present counter-arguments to Will Schryver's presentation from the 2010 conference (still available for viewing here: The Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Instead, all I've seen are ad hominem attacks. Since last year, over 100 Schryver attack threads have been started on that board that shall not be named.

But I won't derail this thread with talk about Will. I just couldn't understand why you would attack him in this thread, and then not give any reasons for it when I asked you. Maybe I'll start my own thread about it.

And, in response to Don:

I hope you will elaborate on this sentence: "... it was also incomplete, not answering all the questions it needed to answer to provide a complete theory ..."

I've heard people say things like this. And I've heard lots of people say Will's presentation was just a bunch of bunk. But I still haven't heard anyone give any substantive reasons for their dismissals.

Don, quite earnestly (and apparently totally oblivious to the Nomad/Will connection), responds:

Hi Nomad,

Will necessarily glossed over his case for direction of dependence with the Book of Abraham, presenting only broad strokes ideas on this and not laying out the specific data.

Note also that Will himself has said that his argument will only be complete in its full written form. Do you disagree with him on this point?

Don

Then, Nackhadlow appears to defend himself:

I wasn't the first to make a reference to the previous presentation. There were references all over the place in this thread. I just called them as I saw them and cited them.

I didn't attack Will, either. I just acknowledged that something super-hyped as a game-changer somewhat fizzled out without presenting much of substance to actually respond to. As Don said, even Will expressed that it was only a preview, and his actual documented findings that would be the REAL unstoppable game changer had yet to be published.

Continuing the analogy, people were hyped to see The Lord of the Rings, and they ended up just getting a trailer FOR the production.

Reviewers and critics are still waiting for the movie to come out. Unfortunately, he pulled a Mel Gibson, and just lost one of his distributors.

Don, am I correct in assuming your presentation this conference will be the actual presentation itself, and not just a trailer for the "real" argument?

At which point, Nomad/Schryver's rage boils over in Midgley-esque fashion:

This is a bunch of bunk. Absolute total bunk!

Tell you the truth, I don’t believe you have even viewed his presentation.

Schryver presented several very specific arguments with a ton of text-critical evidence to support them. Most importantly, he presented a ton of persuasive arguments that the KEP are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. That is the game-changing argument.

I haven’t seen anyone respond to any of his arguments yet. No one. It’s all just been wave-of-a-hand dismissals, just like yours. No specifics. No nothing.

Anyway, if I decide to pursue this further, I’ll start a new thread.

Wow! I have to say, in light of all the controversy surrounding Will's misogyny, I'm shocked that the MDD moderating team didn't deleted the entire thread! I guess they fear offending Don Bradley?

In any case, it will be interesting to see what develops with the thread...

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Seriously, when will these cats realize that there are only like 10 people in all of cyberspace who really cares about either point of view?

None of either of their efforts will ever matter to the bulk of the tithe payers who are largely of the chapel variety.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

[_thews]

Thanks to a very helpful "tip" from an old informant, I was directed to a very interesting thread at the ironically named Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board. Some may be aware of this, but the recently re-baptized Don Bradley has been hyping his own forthcoming FAIR paper on the Kinderhook Plates. He has said that his paper will at last lay to rest any criticism of the affair as it pertains to Joseph Smith's prophetic abilities.

I can't wait. Brant Gardner is going to do a presentation on the translation method as well... should be very interesting.

[_Mike Reed]

I hope to make it to the next FAIR conference for this. As I said on the other forum, Don's material is gonna knock people's socks off.

Others no doubt, won't care about his finds. Can't please everyone, of course... but Don will be making a real contribution in academia on this topic.

I'm happy for Don.

It is quite a thrill to find new material that sheds light on a provacative subject.

[_Fifth Columnist]

I hope to make it to the next FAIR conference for this. As I said on the other forum, Don's material is gonna knock people's socks off.

Others no doubt, won't care about his finds. Can't please everyone, of course... but Don will be making a real contribution in academia on this topic.

I'm happy for Don.

It is quite a thrill to find new material that sheds light on a provacative subject.

Don has stated before that he and Mark Ashurst McGee (?) have found new evidence (at least one new eyewitness) that Joseph attempted a "conventional" translation rather than a revelatory translation of the Kinderhook plates. The question is whether this is helpful or harmful to apologists?

The current argument, best expressed by rcrocket is that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with the Kinderhook plates, despite what William Clayton's journal says. Don will destroy that argument and replace it with Joseph was just a man who was capable of making a dumb mistake like thinking he could actually perform a conventional translation of fake plates. Are apologists in a better position? I don't know. It's hard to say.

[_Mike Reed]

Don will destroy that argument and replace it with Joseph was just a man who was capable of making a dumb mistake like thinking he could actually perform a conventional translation of fake plates. Are apologists in a better position? I don't know. It's hard to say.

I cannot say what Don has found, nor what his find indicates... but I will say this: His work will move discussion on this topic forward in a significant way. And it is about time. :)

[_onandagus]

I'm not aware of who is or isn't a sock puppet of whom. I didn't and don't assume that Nomad is Will, and the idea didn't occur to me in the discussion.

The point of my post wasn't to offend either Will or any staunch supporter. Far from it. I understand from previous posts by Will that he accepts that the evidence presented in his presentation alone, without the complete arguments of his to-be-published piece, haven't persuaded all of his fellow saints, and that this is okay. He only expects them to all be won over by the full paper.

In response to another poster I opined that my FAIR presentation will be a complete demolition in itself of the critical argument from the Kinderhook plates.

Let readers judge for themselves how given I am to hyperbole.

Don

[_why me]

I hope to make it to the next FAIR conference for this. As I said on the other forum, Don's material is gonna knock people's socks off.

Others no doubt, won't care about his finds. Can't please everyone, of course... but Don will be making a real contribution in academia on this topic.

I'm happy for Don.

It is quite a thrill to find new material that sheds light on a provacative subject.

Don has stated before that he and Mark Ashurst McGee (?) have found new evidence (at least one new eyewitness) that Joseph attempted a "conventional" translation rather than a revelatory translation of the Kinderhook plates. The question is whether this is helpful or harmful to apologists?

.

My well placed informant inside the FAIR organizatiion has informed me that Don's information will be very faith promoting and very useful for apologetic discussion. I double checked my informant's account with another well placed informant at the maxwell institute and it seems to match the account of my FAIR informant. I hope that this helps.

[_why me]

In response to another poster I opined that my FAIR presentation will be a complete demolition in itself of the critical argument from the Kinderhook plates.

Let readers judge for themselves how given I am to hyperbole.

Don

Lets hope for the best. I haven't heard much about fanny alger now on this forum. I am not sure if your work had made any impact. 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.