Question for Don Bradley

[Kishkumen]

You are entitled to your opinion, Kishy, and if Bradley's past critical analysis resonate with you on such a grand scale, then so be it. But if you stop and think about it for a second you'll come to conclude that his critical analysis of Mormonism was not strong enough to keep him out of the church. You see, he's back in the church and is tapdancing Mormonism in spite or regardless of all the past arguments he's tendered on this board and elsewhere.

On the other hand, my arguments are powerful enough to keep me out of that Goddamn church! And I hope they help keep others out as well.

Good morning Kish! Have you had your coffee this morning?

Hilarious. So critical analysis, in your mind, is all about reaching a predetermined conclusion. LOL! That is actually the opposite of critical analysis.

[Kishkumen]

You know what? I'm about 2/3 through Bradley's book and am about to come to the conclusion that he's faking it and really doesn't believe the Book of Mormon is a genuine historical document. I'm starting to think he believes it's inspired fiction and is useful in helping people live a better life by applying religious principles and faith in order to be saved in God.

Now, I'm not sure, but that's how I'm leaning. I'll know more when he gets his ass here in this thread and explain the bit about "genetic isolation" compared to new apologetics that express color as body paint, animal skins, and personal righteousness or the lack thereof

Bradley, you won't fool me. You'll try, but won't succeed, my friend.

It shouldn’t matter either way. In any case, he was probably just adding a plausible hypothesis to the main argument as a placeholder. His book is primarily a literary-historical analysis of the Book of Mormon that does not either depend on or exclude historicity. In other words, both camps should find it valuable. Indeed, it is just a great book (Don’s, that is) about the Book of Mormon.

[Shulem]

Hilarious. So critical analysis, in your mind, is all about reaching a predetermined conclusion. LOL! That is actually the opposite of critical analysis.

Then you're saying my analysis are not critical but something else?

Whatever. Think what you want. And drink your coffee.

[Shulem]

It shouldn’t matter either way. In any case, he was probably just adding a plausible hypothesis to the main argument as a placeholder. His book is primarily a literary-historical analysis of the Book of Mormon that does not either depend on or exclude historicity. In other words, both camps should find it valuable. Indeed, it is just a great book (Don’s, that is) about the Book of Mormon.

And this coming from someone who didn't even recognize the book in which I cited in the opening post when enquiring whether he actually wrote that.

Come on Kish, back off. Let Bradley explain himself, not you.

[Kishkumen]

Then you're saying my analysis are not critical but something else?

Whatever. Think what you want. And drink your coffee.

If you judge them by their effectiveness at keeping you ex-LDS, it suggests that dispassionate analysis is not your game. You need to prove to yourself that Mormonism isn’t true, and that means you will exclude the possibility that it is true at the outset.

[Kishkumen]

And this coming from someone who didn't even recognize the book in which I cited in the opening post when enquiring whether he actually wrote that.

Come on Kish, back off. Let Bradley explain himself, not you.

Wrong. I didn’t know you weren’t attributing the SC article to Don. I thought you were.

[I Have Questions]

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a  skin of blackness to come upon them."

With regards to the above scripture it is either:
1. An accurate record of God’s actual dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas (as per the introduction to The Book of Mormon). Or it is
2. Disavowed as a theory advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse (as per 'Race & The Priesthood').

It cannot be both.

[drumdude]

Then you're saying my analysis are not critical but something else?

Whatever. Think what you want. And drink your coffee.

If you judge them by their effectiveness at keeping you ex-LDS, it suggests that dispassionate analysis is not your game. You need to prove to yourself that Mormonism isn’t true, and that means you will exclude the possibility that it is true at the outset.

We all have our biases, Kish. Your political ones are very similar to Paul’s religious ones.

[I Have Questions]

If you judge them by their effectiveness at keeping you ex-LDS, it suggests that dispassionate analysis is not your game. You need to prove to yourself that Mormonism isn’t true, and that means you will exclude the possibility that it is true at the outset.

We all have our biases, Kish. Your political ones are very similar to Paul’s religious ones.

I think the term “Mormonism is true” is a very vague and ambiguous term. So much so it’s a meaningless term.

[drumdude]

We all have our biases, Kish. Your political ones are very similar to Paul’s religious ones.

I think the term “Mormonism is true” is a very vague and ambiguous term. So much so it’s a meaningless term.

Has anyone researched the history of the ubiquitous “I know the church is true” said during sacrament meetings?

If I had to guess, it probably started in the 1950s as Mormonism grew and tried to become more mainstream and less frontier.