Question for Don Bradley

[Shulem]

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.......

I agree.

For anyone who is interested in the awakening that is happening now as the world learns the wonderful quest of mankind (thanks to the Internet) on this planet, then I recommend these sites that offer hundreds of YouTube mini videos about spiritual awakening and understanding our purpose in life by using all the principles provided by inspired sources, worldwide. I've personally digested every single video (over 1,000!) and am a much better person because I've applied these things in my life. I AM awake!

• Spiritual Dive
• Solace Owl
• Knowledge Words

[Kishkumen]

I don't know that I said that. I don't know if I even thought that.

But I will say, if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, then go elsewhere. You are welcome to choose what threads you care to participate in and if you don't like the tone, then do something else with your time. Or, as it is, feel free to express your objections and disappointment.

Look, I don't expect you to "cooperate" with me but it would go a long way if you'd answer a question when someone needs clarification in order to understand what the hell you are thinking! Or is it you just want to play games?

Yeah, I don’t know why acting like an asshole has become a generally accepted way to induce others to engage. If I were Don, I’d ignore you. And, for the most part, he has. Here’s an idea: He published a book. Why don’t you publish an article refuting Don, and you can go from there? Let him respond to that. That’s how scholarship works. Scholars don’t scour the internet looking for the rando on a message board or comments section who disagrees with them.

As for the “can’t stand the heat” crap, why does there have to be heat? Why do you need it? You want Don to engage with you, but your posture is “schoolyard scrapping.” Why should he want to engage with you if that is how you act toward him?

This is more generally aimed at everyone who responded to me about Don: People make choices. Those choices govern other choices they make. You want to use those further constraints as proof that Don is not free, or that the church is bad because it has rules, etc. We’re all in the same boat. Bucking whatever community in which you participate, even this one, will have consequences.

Don isn’t afraid to answer anyone, but he has priorities that spring from his choices. He chose a long time ago to return to the LDS Church, and he chose to stay away from here for the most part. The two are surely related, but not on account of fear. I would say that he tires of the same questions that have no answers you all would find satisfactory. The questions seem to go like this: “Why did you do something I totally disagree with? How could you? Given the fact that the Church is bad, why on earth would you go back after leaving?”

Answering those questions over and over again gets old.

[Jersey Girl]

Don isn’t afraid to answer anyone, but he has priorities that spring from his choices. He chose a long time ago to return to the LDS Church, and he chose to stay away from here for the most part. The two are surely related, but not on account of fear. I would say that he tires of the same questions that have no answers you all would find satisfactory. The questions seem to go like this: “Why did you do something I totally disagree with? How could you? Given the fact that the Church is bad, why on earth would you go back after leaving?”

Answering those questions over and over again gets old.

Not following this thread but that's never stopped me. I recall the many times that Don departed threads here not because he was afraid to answer folks, but because he spent a very long time doing just that when he had other fish to fry as it were. That fits with what you've said about choices. In the case I'm using, Don made a choice to enter into discussion then chose to depart because he was investing too much time in it and chose (how redundant is this sounding?) in favor of other pursuits.

4:30 a.m. I'll show myself out now.

[msnobody]

I don't know that I said that. I don't know if I even thought that.

But I will say, if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, then go elsewhere. You are welcome to choose what threads you care to participate in and if you don't like the tone, then do something else with your time. Or, as it is, feel free to express your objections and disappointment.

Look, I don't expect you to "cooperate" with me but it would go a long way if you'd answer a question when someone needs clarification in order to understand what the hell you are thinking! Or is it you just want to play games?

Yeah, I don’t know why acting like an asshole has become a generally accepted way to induce others to engage. If I were Don, I’d ignore you. And, for the most part, he has. Here’s an idea: He published a book. Why don’t you publish an article refuting Don, and you can go from there? Let him respond to that. That’s how scholarship works. Scholars don’t scour the internet looking for the rando on a message board or comments section who disagrees with them.

As for the “can’t stand the heat” crap, why does there have to be heat? Why do you need it? You want Don to engage with you, but your posture is “schoolyard scrapping.” Why should he want to engage with you if that is how you act toward him?

This is more generally aimed at everyone who responded to me about Don: People make choices. Those choices govern other choices they make. You want to use those further constraints as proof that Don is not free, or that the church is bad because it has rules, etc. We’re all in the same boat. Bucking whatever community in which you participate, even this one, will have consequences.

Don isn’t afraid to answer anyone, but he has priorities that spring from his choices. He chose a long time ago to return to the LDS Church, and he chose to stay away from here for the most part. The two are surely related, but not on account of fear. I would say that he tires of the same questions that have no answers you all would find satisfactory. The questions seem to go like this: “Why did you do something I totally disagree with? How could you? Given the fact that the Church is bad, why on earth would you go back after leaving?”

Answering those questions over and over again gets old.

Well said, Kish.

[Kishkumen]

Not following this thread but that's never stopped me. I recall the many times that Don departed threads here not because he was afraid to answer folks, but because he spent a very long time doing just that when he had other fish to fry as it were. That fits with what you've said about choices. In the case I'm using, Don made a choice to enter into discussion then chose to depart because he was investing too much time in it and chose (how redundant is this sounding?) in favor of other pursuits.

4:30 a.m. I'll show myself out now.

Yep! Right now his plate is very full.

[Kishkumen]

Well said, Kish.

Thank you!

[Moksha]

Kish, Paul has a lot of good stuff to add. What scholarly Mormonish journals should he seek out?

[Shulem]

Yeah, I don’t know why acting like an asshole has become a generally accepted way to induce others to engage. If I were Don, I’d ignore you. And, for the most part, he has. Here’s an idea: He published a book. Why don’t you publish an article refuting Don, and you can go from there? Let him respond to that. That’s how scholarship works. Scholars don’t scour the internet looking for the rando on a message board or comments section who disagrees with them.

As for the “can’t stand the heat” crap, why does there have to be heat? Why do you need it? You want Don to engage with you, but your posture is “schoolyard scrapping.” Why should he want to engage with you if that is how you act toward him?

Let's be clear, Don has totally ignored *this* thread which surely he is aware of, however he participated briefly in the Mormon at ages 11, 15, 24 is really Joseph Smith Jr., in disguise! thread and then refused to answer follow-up questions from posters such as I Have Questions and Dr. Shades. Don ran off without explaining himself further. You'd think that an author who wants to sell books would take the time to explain their position when a serious question is raised by someone reviewing their book. I venture to guess that if he had taken the time to explain his position regarding the original question for which this thread evolves around -- Don may have sold some books! This thread already has thousands of views (8,800) and I tend to think that his involvement here would have generated some sales! That is a missed opportunity on his part. But the bottom line is that we don't get any clarification on what Bradley meant by genetic isolation as he has dodged this issue entirely and missed out on some potential sales.

Kish, there is always going to be heat in the kitchen here at Discuss Mormonism, so just accept that and navigate your way through it as you think best. And, feel free to call me an asshole whenever you want!

Also, I think my thread Shulem cracks the code for The Book of Lehi/116 Lost Pages!! which focuses on Don's book is an incredible addition to this board and offers an inside look at certain interesting facets about the subject matter. Again, Don has elected to not participate or acknowledge this work which won't help him sell more books. As you say, he's too "busy" for that.

[Shulem]

Well said, Kish.

You can't say the same for Don Bradley who has said absolutely nothing. And because of that, YOU are left in the dark and must therefore interpret for yourself what Bradley meant.

So, what do you think Bradley meant? Speak up, please, and tell us what you think!

[Shulem]

4:30 a.m. I'll show myself out now.

Don't be a stranger. Glad to see you popping around.