I think Bradley will eventually weigh in because it's in his nature to express his beliefs in writing! He will show up when he's up to it.
And, for the record, I appreciated Bradley's honestly (7 years ago) in determining that Anubis's nose was hacked out of the Facsimile No. 3 printing plate prior to official publication. On this point, Bradley is on the right side of history while other LDS scholars, such as John Gee, turn their heads and cover their eyes & ears because they are afraid of the implications.
Facsimile No. 3 printing plate reveals jackal head Anubis
On a scale of 1-10: 1 being there is no way there was a nose and 10 being there was most certainly a nose.
You've found a place on the printing plate where a chiseled-away snout is visibly present. And it has visible fangs. And the appropriate ear has always been present. And the snout was, from an egyptological perspective, always to be expected.
I found his answers on the topic lacking, but it’s not his job to explain things he doesn’t want to. He doesn’t owe anyone anything.
I'm afraid you are somewhat mistaken and I will explain why. The following statements are gleaned from the Introduction of Don's book "The Lost 116 Pages" and seem to imply an open invitation about the author's work is welcome by all who might like to contribute or enquire:
Because the models used in this book are probabilistic, they are capable of being improved indefinitely, and doubtless will be over time―including by some readers of this book.
Writing as a Latter-day Saint, expecting to be read to a good extent by other Latter-day Saints, and yet wanting this work to also be accessible to non-Latter-day Saints and contribute to wider scholarship involves decisions on how to balance various audiences and concerns. Given my own faith, and this faith will be shared by many of my readers, I have elected to write about a work we mutually embrace as scripture in the language of faith.
This book is a work of scholarship and not of inspiration. My conclusions, like all empirical conclusions, are subject to revision as the evidence grows. We will learn to make better use of the sources we have, including closer reading of our available Book of Mormon text. New sources will also be found that will require revision of existing interpretations―and also enable the confirmation and expansion of those interpretations.
I found his answers on the topic lacking, but it’s not his job to explain things he doesn’t want to. He doesn’t owe anyone anything.
I'm afraid you are somewhat mistaken and I will explain why. The following statements are gleaned from the Introduction of Don's book "The Lost 116 Pages" and seem to imply an open invitation about the author's work is welcome by all who might like to contribute or enquire:
Because the models used in this book are probabilistic, they are capable of being improved indefinitely, and doubtless will be over time―including by some readers of this book.
Writing as a Latter-day Saint, expecting to be read to a good extent by other Latter-day Saints, and yet wanting this work to also be accessible to non-Latter-day Saints and contribute to wider scholarship involves decisions on how to balance various audiences and concerns. Given my own faith, and this faith will be shared by many of my readers, I have elected to write about a work we mutually embrace as scripture in the language of faith.
This book is a work of scholarship and not of inspiration. My conclusions, like all empirical conclusions, are subject to revision as the evidence grows. We will learn to make better use of the sources we have, including closer reading of our available Book of Mormon text. New sources will also be found that will require revision of existing interpretations―and also enable the confirmation and expansion of those interpretations.
Was that topic the impetus for his return to the church? That’s the topic where I find his answers lacking.
Was that topic the impetus for his return to the church? That’s the topic where I find his answers lacking.
I've read some snippets about Don's return to the church but know little about his life, apostasy, and transition back into the church in which he was rebaptized. Here is a FAIR presentation with a video coupled with questions and answers if you're interested. I've not listened to it, yet.
I know little about Bradley but my gut feeling tells me he knows the church is bunk and he's playing the game of religion until such time as he is able to transition altogether out of religion and into higher levels of spirituality that is not dependent on religion or the worshipping of a particular deity.
Was that topic the impetus for his return to the church? That’s the topic where I find his answers lacking.
I've read some snippets about Don's return to the church but know little about his life, apostasy, and transition back into the church in which he was rebaptized. Here is a FAIR presentation with a video coupled with questions and answers if you're interested. I've not listened to it, yet.
I know little about Bradley but my gut feeling tells me he knows the church is bunk and he's playing the game of religion until such time as he is able to transition altogether out of religion and into higher levels of spirituality that is not dependent on religion or the worshipping of a particular deity.
That's my opinion.
That’s a reasonable and respectable path, if true. I often think it’s sad that ex-Mormons almost universally choose atheism after leaving, rather than choosing something transcendent.
Once an ex-Mormon gets over the pain of leaving Mormonism (which is not guaranteed to happen), I can definitely see returning to religion in another way.
I knew someone once who had been a Protestant missionary in Spain. They reported that lapsed Catholic Spaniards would often answer them with words to the effect of, "Why should I believe in your religion when I don't even believe in the real one?"
I expect that there's a tendency for people to keep their childhood religion in a special epistemological place even if they stop actually believing it. I figure that childhood faith must often remain as a personal definition of what spirituality should be like if it could be. So no other religion is going to measure up to the one that was left behind, because the yardstick was tailored to that one.
I knew someone once who had been a Protestant missionary in Spain. They reported that lapsed Catholic Spaniards would often answer them with words to the effect of, "Why should I believe in your religion when I don't even believe in the real one?"
I expect that there's a tendency for people to keep their childhood religion in a special epistemological place even if they stop actually believing it. I figure that childhood faith must often remain as a personal definition of what spirituality should be like if it could be. So no other religion is going to measure up to the one that was left behind, because the yardstick was tailored to that one.
I understand that programming of the subconscious mind begins right after birth as children are influenced mainly by their parents, family, and then by the rest of society (isn't that right, Jersey Girl?). One reason why Mormonism has such a grip on its members via testimony of the Spirit® is that Mormon children are indoctrinated at a very young age and the repetition of religious practice is a constant which is fed to the children through the brainwashing programs of the Church. The aim of the Church is to convince anyone and everyone that any good feelings they experience while thinking about Mormonism is a kind of proof that the Spirit® is telling them the Church is true. But those feelings and experiences are just part of human life that everyone around the globe experiences in their own communities and religions. But the Mormons put a special brand and twist on linking good feelings with what must be true and absolute. Let's be clear, brainwashing and Mormonism go hand in hand and the Mormons start this process at a very young age.
Let's be clear, brainwashing and Mormonism go hand in hand and the Mormons start this process at a very young age.
Yes. And members know it, and are happy about it. They want their children brainwashed into Mormonism because in turn, they’ve been brainwashed into believing that’s an essential part of keeping their family on the ‘Covenant Path’. Amway can only dream of such unthinking loyalty in their ranks.
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.
I've read some snippets about Don's return to the church but know little about his life, apostasy, and transition back into the church in which he was rebaptized. Here is a FAIR presentation with a video coupled with questions and answers if you're interested. I've not listened to it, yet.
I know little about Bradley but my gut feeling tells me he knows the church is bunk and he's playing the game of religion until such time as he is able to transition altogether out of religion and into higher levels of spirituality that is not dependent on religion or the worshipping of a particular deity.
That's my opinion.
That’s a reasonable and respectable path, if true. I often think it’s sad that ex-Mormons almost universally choose atheism after leaving, rather than choosing something transcendent.
Once an ex-Mormon gets over the pain of leaving Mormonism (which is not guaranteed to happen), I can definitely see returning to religion in another way.
Or, another way to look at it is, rather than returning to religion, we move on into spirituality, whatever that means. Religion is so man, and that is the turn off once one realizes our fellow "religion/religious" man simply uses us for their own gratification and improvement. Spirituality, if you will, much more points to the Divine rather than man. Just throwin ideas out to mull over.......
