Interview With Don Bradley.

[Marcus]

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.

I completely agree that Smith was using the Bible as a means to create his fiction, as well as his upbringing. It's extremely unfortunate for many that his bad behavior as a cheating adulterer who betrayed his wife got tangled into the religion he founded. I mentioned before, I think, that more and more family journals are being transcribed and distributed, and the collective pain and damage done to families because of this "doctrine" he established to justify his immoral behavior is overwhelming.

[Rivendale]

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.

I completely agree that Smith was using the Bible as a means to create his fiction, as well as his upbringing. It's extremely unfortunate for many that his bad behavior as a cheating adulterer who betrayed his wife got tangled into the religion he founded. I mentioned before, I think, that more and more family journals are being transcribed and distributed, and the collective pain and damage done to families because of this "doctrine" he established to justify his immoral behavior is overwhelming.

I am convinced the church stopped having apostles keep journals and creates pressure on members to donate ancestor's diaries to the church in an effort to curtail and hide nefarious information that exposes immoral behaviour.

[huckelberry]

I listened to the Don Bradley interview. He did not engage in any apologetic effort. It was clear that the Book of Mormon meant a lot to him. I would gather with that value he likely will accept for himself objectively uncertain arguments.

I remember being told in church that when Joseph Smith ran into Isaiah in the Book of Mormon he took short cut in translation and just used his KJV. Now that was not official it was just some guy in church. I suspect in seeing Bible like passages a believer may attribute that to both books having the same Divine guide. Besides using familiar approaches to teaching makes the Book of Mormon more accessible so inspiration could favor that path.

Now I am not convinced by these proposals but some people may be.

[MG 2.0]

I listened to the Don Bradley interview. He did not engage in any apologetic effort. It was clear that the Book of Mormon meant a lot to him. I would gather with that value he likely will accept for himself objectively uncertain arguments.

I remember being told in church that when Joseph Smith ran into Isaiah in the Book of Mormon he took short cut in translation and just used his KJV. Now that was not official it was just some guy in church. I suspect in seeing Bible like passages a believer may attribute that to both books having the same Divine guide. Besides using familiar approaches to teaching makes the Book of Mormon more accessible so inspiration could favor that path.

Now I am not convinced by these proposals but some people may be.

Hi huckelberry, just a short response to remind everyone that for most of the translation Joseph did not have direct physical access to the plates themselves. Something else was going on. It is that something else that is to a large extent unknown other than the fact Joseph said the “gift and power of God” was involved.

I haven’t seen anyone yet that can specifically describe what that may have looked like. Blake Ostler, the Interpreter folks, and others have tried to dig into what this “power” (the nuts and bolts) was. At the end of the day we only have Joseph’s word. Was there divine cut and pasting going on when the language of the ancient Nephite prophets didn’t get the point/doctrine across?

We just don’t know. What we do have is the rest of the text sitting along side with New Testament cut and pastes. That is MOST of the Book of Mormon. That text when torn apart and looked at has some pretty amazing stuff going on doctrinally and textually. Critics will often bypass that and go straight to the New Testament language, etc.

I can’t really blame them. It’s right there in black and white. Unfortunately I think that their view is a bit too restrictive/constrictive for my taste.

But to each their own. We’re going to see things differently depending on other factors added into the mix. Joseph Smith. Existence of God. Revelation. Jesus. Etc.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I listened to the Don Bradley interview. He did not engage in any apologetic effort. It was clear that the Book of Mormon meant a lot to him. I would gather with that value he likely will accept for himself objectively uncertain arguments.

I remember being told in church that when Joseph Smith ran into Isaiah in the Book of Mormon he took short cut in translation and just used his KJV. Now that was not official it was just some guy in church. I suspect in seeing Bible like passages a believer may attribute that to both books having the same Divine guide. Besides using familiar approaches to teaching makes the Book of Mormon more accessible so inspiration could favor that path.

Now I am not convinced by these proposals but some people may be.

You will note that the Church doesn’t put forward that theory, and for good reason. Smith plagiarised the KJV Bible, if they admit that then they open the door to Smith utilising other sources of inspiration, such as The Pilgrim’s Progress for the story of Abinadi. The Church hasn’t dared mention the KJV Bible plagiarised content found in The Book of Mormon. Not a mention. Which tells you they’re scared of it, that it’s significant, and they cannot dream up anything approaching a reasonable explanation for why it’s in there.

If there was a reasonable, faith promoting explanation, the Church would have provided it. They haven’t. So there isn’t.

[MG 2.0]

I listened to the Don Bradley interview. He did not engage in any apologetic effort. It was clear that the Book of Mormon meant a lot to him. I would gather with that value he likely will accept for himself objectively uncertain arguments.

I remember being told in church that when Joseph Smith ran into Isaiah in the Book of Mormon he took short cut in translation and just used his KJV. Now that was not official it was just some guy in church. I suspect in seeing Bible like passages a believer may attribute that to both books having the same Divine guide. Besides using familiar approaches to teaching makes the Book of Mormon more accessible so inspiration could favor that path.

Now I am not convinced by these proposals but some people may be.

You will note that the Church doesn’t put that view theory, and for good reason. Smith plagiarised the KJV Bible, if they admit that then they open the door to Smith utilising other sources of inspiration, such as The Pilgrim’s Progress for the story of Abinadi. The Church hasn’t dared mentioning the KJV Bible plagiarised content found in The Book of Mormon. Not a mention. Which tells you they’re scared of it, that it’s significant, and they cannot dream up anything approaching a reasonable explanation for why it’s in there.

I think if you consider what I’ve said in my previous post there are other ways of looking at what you seem to think is an insurmountable problem for the Book of Mormon. There are some things that are left to scholars and individual members to wrestle with. It sounds like you have had to do so along with many of the rest of us.

Good luck!

Regards,
MG

[Jersey Girl]

Don Bradley on Jesus. "He's the pivot".

Yes, Don Bradley. Yes.

[Poly G Porter]

Ask Jeff if he would like his sponsor to be Snapple Iced Tea?

[Kishkumen]

As I understand Don’s “journey” it goes something like this:
Strong ideological Mormon as a teenager - studied Church history - shelf broke - strong ideological atheist - brother dies - strong ideological evangelical - rejoins Mormonism and becomes strongly ideological Mormon again.

Don was not a strong ideological Mormon as a teenager. He was a believing member of the LDS Church as a teenager. I really don't see the use or purpose of the insertion of the term "ideological" all over the place in here. Don is not an ideological person.

Don does have a belief that he is special, and that God saved his life specifically. Although how he rationalises that alongside the deaths of his brother and his son is unexplained. He also holds the position that belief in God is the only rational conclusion, which is odd because by definition, belief in the supernatural is irrational. He must know that.

I don't see Don as believing he is special. He felt that his personal experience of the Deity was such that he could not deny Its existence.

I think Don is in a fight with his own thinking. And has been for a long time. As for the interview, it’s not an interview. It’s two like-minded people bigging up each others irrational beliefs in God.

No. He is not in a fight with his own thinking. He does think things through carefully, and he has a strong spiritual witness and personal commitment to the LDS faith.

[I Have Questions]

As I understand Don’s “journey” it goes something like this:
Strong ideological Mormon as a teenager - studied Church history - shelf broke - strong ideological atheist - brother dies - strong ideological evangelical - rejoins Mormonism and becomes strongly ideological Mormon again.

Don was not a strong ideological Mormon as a teenager. He was a believing member of the LDS Church as a teenager. I really don't see the use or purpose of the insertion of the term "ideological" all over the place in here. Don is not an ideological person.

Don uses the terminology himself in his interview. He describes moving from an LDS ideology to embracing an atheistic ideology.

Don: “So there's an ideology that has to be embraced. So to go from, you know, growing up a devout Latter-day Saint and jettisoning that ideology and then embracing an atheistic ideology, then stepping away from that to say, “Okay, what's the next ideology am I going to embrace?”