Question for Don Bradley

[Shulem]

Where did you come to learn that Don Bradley wrote this? Did he? Where is he credited?

What?

I assume you are addressing me about my original citation in the opening post. If so, please reread it because the answers to your questions are written in black and white (no pun intended).

[Kishkumen]

What?

I assume you are addressing me about my original citation in the opening post. If so, please reread it because the answers to your questions are written in black and white (no pun intended).

Oh, OK. I thought you might be suggesting he needed to reconcile different things that he wrote. Thanks for clarifying. I don't know that he will come here to answer you. I rather doubt it.

[Kishkumen]

Similarly, another book of scripture (Stoopid Book of Abraham) contains ideas that Smith adopted into his imaginative writings that were influenced by culture and influences of his times with regard to *when* Egypt was first founded and *who* established it. I've covered this and provided excellent documentation in the Celestial forum:

Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

Thus, we can compare how Smith borrowed and adopted ideas of racism prevalent in his times and punctuated it in the covers of the Book of Mormon just as he did with information of his day in coming up with a false tale of how Egypt was founded. Today, the Church plays both sides of the fence in trying to satisfy chapel Mormons (2300 BC) with Internet Mormons (3000 BC) with regard to when dynastic Egypt was first founded. But incredibly, the Church totally ignores predynastic Egypt with it's doubletalk and apologists are fine with that because they love to ignore the truth while fostering and defending Book of Abraham lies. Apologists have not figured out a way to justify the contradiction between 2300 BC vs. 3000 BC because numbers are numbers and do not lie. But apologists can take racism in the Book of Mormon and twist and distort the meanings in order to make it somewhat palatable for less intelligent readers to accept as Mormonism continues to dumb down. I want to find out just how honest Don Bradley is.

So, what do you think of that, Don? Will you rise above that and denounce chapter one of the Book of Abraham as a false telling of how and when Egypt was founded? Can you do that? Will you?

I would call it an alternate myth for how Egypt was founded. After all, the Egyptians had no idea how Egypt was founded either. Across time, there were many different myths about the founding of Egypt, just as there were many myths about the origins of the Hebrews. Look at Josephus' Against Apion for some examples. Non-Jews had some wild anti-semitic theories about the origins of the Hebrews.

[sock puppet]

I guess the problem for me is that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text. It is a 19th century text. So this apologetic doesn’t work for me. Also, I don’t think the prejudices of antiquity are any better than the prejudices of today. They are different, but not really less offensive in some kind of abstract way.

I agree that the Book of Mormon is not ancient text but is entirely the product of Smith's imagination other than whole verses ripped from the 1611 KJV Bible and arranged in such a manner to make the book appear authentic and biblical. The prejudices (bad behavior) therein are no worse than prejudices of our time and can't be justified from a loving point of view. Humanity in all ages should suppose God is love and not a respecter of persons.

Here's to hoping Bradley pops in to explain his position and exactly what he means by employing the word "genetic" in describing efforts enforced by racist King Nephi in forbidding his people (no exceptions granted) from marrying outside his self-righteous clan. There is simply nothing inspiring about that kind of religious law which made no provisions for Lamanite defectors or orphans. It simply painted all Lamanites as black, dark, and evil people who are not allowed to penetrate Nephi's cult.

We will have to see if Don pops in and explains himself. The chapter in question makes some interesting comparisons between the biblical murderous conquest of Joshua in Canaan and Nephi's conquest in establishing his own kingdom -- a racist cult!

Why can't Mormon God be racist? Why must Mormon God be loving? The Book of Mormon is, on the whole, more akin to the Old Testament than the New Testament. Mormon God is a reflection of Old Testament God. Just because mankind has figured out the warts of character of Old Testament God and Mormon God, and advanced beyond them, doesn't mean that they must be loving and not a respecter of persons. But it makes one wonder why, after Jesus came and fulfilled the Old Testament law, a religion founded 1800 years later claiming to be Christian would make its God in the fashion of the superseded, law-bound God of the Old Testament and less like Jesus.

[Kishkumen]

So what you guys are talking about is a very serious issue: what is to be done with the real problems found in sacred texts? Some people go your route and jettison the texts. Others insist that they have to be taken at face value and try to make a good thing out of it. Others seek to say the text doesn't say what it says. Others still try to find creative readings that mitigate or reverse the apparent bad messages.

It is possible to acknowledge the bad and seek to find the good. No one is obliged to do so, but it is not a bad thing to do so.

[Shulem]

I would call it an alternate myth for how Egypt was founded. After all, the Egyptians had no idea how Egypt was founded either. Across time, there were many different myths about the founding of Egypt, just as there were many myths about the origins of the Hebrews. Look at Josephus' Against Apion for some examples. Non-Jews had some wild anti-semitic theories about the origins of the Hebrews.

It's a *fact* that Upper & Lower Egypt were unified under a single king in about 3000 BC to form the First Dynasty. Other kings that followed greatly predate the biblical 2300 BC myth of Noah/Ham and Smith's so-called Egyptus. So, the *when* is not a myth. Scientific analysis and data along with archeological artifacts and tangible evidence prove this.

Smith's accounting of when Egypt was discovered is 100% false.

[huckelberry]

So what you guys are talking about is a very serious issue: what is to be done with the real problems found in sacred texts? Some people go your route and jettison the texts. Others insist that they have to be taken at face value and try to make a good thing out of it. Others seek to say the text doesn't say what it says. Others still try to find creative readings that mitigate or reverse the apparent bad messages.

It is possible to acknowledge the bad and seek to find the good. No one is obliged to do so, but it is not a bad thing to do so.

Kishkumen, perhaps the methods you note are variations on how to preserve infallibility in all parts. I think there is plenty of room to view inspiration of scripture as call and lead for individuals and people using their limited understanding and knowledge. Scriptures point to a path forward and in specifics may be relics of the past. I cannot find a way to avoid the view that the Old Testament law is a collection of what people decided as law over many years. What I see is God with some leads assigned people to determine laws.

[Shulem]

So what you guys are talking about is a very serious issue: what is to be done with the real problems found in sacred texts? Some people go your route and jettison the texts. Others insist that they have to be taken at face value and try to make a good thing out of it. Others seek to say the text doesn't say what it says. Others still try to find creative readings that mitigate or reverse the apparent bad messages.

It is possible to acknowledge the bad and seek to find the good. No one is obliged to do so, but it is not a bad thing to do so.

Yes, it's possible to discern what's bad and find good things in sacred text and traditions. But text such as that of the Explanations for Facsimile No. 3, published in Mormon canon for 144 years, have no redeeming value. It's high time the Church dump the crap and move on just as they did the priesthood ban in 1978. Surely you agree.

[Kishkumen]

Kishkumen, perhaps the methods you note are variations on how to preserve infallibility in all parts. I think there is plenty of room to view inspiration of scripture as call and lead for individuals and people using their limited understanding and knowledge. Scriptures point to a path forward and in specifics may be relics of the past. I cannot find a way to avoid the view that the Old Testament law is a collection of what people decided as law over many years. What I see is God with some leads assigned people to determine laws.

I don't think scripture is infallible, and I don't seek to prop up claims of infallibility. I would agree in general terms with what you say above after the first sentence, although I confess I am not exactly sure what you are saying in the last sentence.

[Kishkumen]

Yes, it's possible to discern what's bad and find good things in sacred text and traditions. But text such as that of the Explanations for Facsimile No. 3, published in Mormon canon for 144 years, have no redeeming value. It's high time the Church dump the crap and move on just as they did the priesthood ban in 1978. Surely you agree.

No redeeming value? I don't go in for stark statements like that. Abraham reasoning on the principles of astronomy? Seems like it is just an illustration of what Joseph Smith thought Abraham did. The stuff about the slave is crap, sure.