Question for Don Bradley

[Kishkumen]

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.

I know that you are unlikely to take my advice, but as a published scholar who is considered an expert in his field, he is going to focus on engaging with other scholars and their published works. That keeps him very busy.

Let me give you a parallel. There is a fellow who wrote a conspiracy theory about the invention of Christianity who used what was perhaps my best article as "proof" that his conspiracy theory is true. In that way a lot of distracting, unproductive, and pretty looney attention was aimed at me. Even within the last few weeks, I have received messages on Facebook from an account shoving purported evidence of this theory into my box. It's probably a dummy account used by the book's author, for all I know.

The article is 15 years old this year. Sure, I could waste my good time arguing with the supporters of this lunatic conspiracy theory, but it would not be a good use of my time.

Now, in this case, you are not a lunatic, and you find some interesting stuff. But I think the same general principle applies to your interactions with Don. He has a very busy life, and he spends his serious historian time doing scholarly presentations and publications that give him the opportunity to interact with the community of established experts.

You are not in that conversation by choice. Don does not need to bend to your will.

[Shulem]

...as a published scholar who is considered an expert in his field, he is going to focus on engaging with other scholars

...that give him the opportunity to interact with the community of established experts

It is my wish that other scholars (more formable than me?) deemed worthy of a response will get wind of *this* thread and begin to question Don Bradley on his usage of genetic isolation and further question him on his scholarly opinion of Book of Mormon skin issues. There is no question in my scholarly mind that Don Bradley dodged the controversy in his book and neglected to express his scholarly interpretation of Book of Mormon racism based on skin color. I do hope that those other scholars are up to the task and can handle him as well as I could, if you get what I mean.

[Kishkumen]

It is my wish that other scholars (more formable than me?) deemed worthy of a response will get wind of *this* thread and begin to question Don Bradley on his usage of genetic isolation and further question him on his scholarly opinion of Book of Mormon skin issues. There is no question in my scholarly mind that Don Bradley dodged the controversy in his book and neglected to express his scholarly interpretation of Book of Mormon racism based on skin color. I do hope that those other scholars are up to the task and can handle him as well as I could, if you get what I mean.

I don't get the rudeness. You have just as much opportunity to put together publishable work and submit it to a journal as anyone else. Cheryl Bruno is an excellent Mormon historian, and she is not an academic. Don is not an academic. Lots of published scholars of Mormonism are not academics. It takes putting your stuff together in a way that is presentable in conferences, journals, and books. That's it. You are certainly smart enough. You can write well. If you choose not to do what it takes to engage with fellow experts, that's not my fault and nothing to be rude to me over.

Eye roll? I should be the one rolling my eyes. How tiresome!

[Shulem]

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

Right here in Discuss Mormonism. This is the place.

[Moksha]

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

Right here in Discuss Mormonism. This is the place.

A broader audience like Dialogue or Journal of Mormon History. I don't know if they require a doctoral degree like in Dentistry or Law.

[Kishkumen]

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

That's a good question. One has to find the right forum and pitch their material in the right way to fit in there. It is not easy. Scholars ordinarily submit their work to journals only to have it rejected, then revise it, then submit it again in a process that ideally improves the strength of the argument and makes it more likely to be persuasive to other experts. He might look at Dialogue, a journal that in past times has published on both LDS scripture and issues of race in Mormonism.

[Shulem]

I don't get the rudeness. You have just as much opportunity to put together publishable work and submit it to a journal as anyone else. Cheryl Bruno is an excellent Mormon historian, and she is not an academic. Don is not an academic. Lots of published scholars of Mormonism are not academics. It takes putting your stuff together in a way that is presentable in conferences, journals, and books. That's it. You are certainly smart enough. You can write well. If you choose not to do what it takes to engage with fellow experts, that's not my fault and nothing to be rude to me over.

Eye roll? I should be the one rolling my eyes. How tiresome!

Kishy,

I've seen you roll your eyes many times on this board and thought of that when adding the emoticons in this conversation. So, you may take your own suggestion and roll your eyes!! Roll them!

I publish my works right here on Discuss Mormonism for everyone to see. No need to jump through hoops or play the academia game. Discuss Mormonism offers freedom of speech and a venue in which one can say what they will.

I would love to see Don Bradley come here and discuss the skin of blackness in more detail as it relates to "seed" and genetic isolation.

[Kishkumen]

Right here in Discuss Mormonism. This is the place.

There it is. That is your choice. Don chooses to invest effort in other places. You don't need to do what he does, and he does not need to do what you do. That is OK for both of you, and it makes neither of you a coward, weak, or stupid. You simply choose to do things differently.

[Kishkumen]

Kishy,

I've seen you roll your eyes many times on this board and thought of that when adding the emoticons in this conversation. So, you may take your own suggestion and roll your eyes!! Roll them!

If I am trying to be polite and constructive, maybe that calls for a little reciprocity?

I publish my works right here on Discuss Mormonism for everyone to see. No need to jump through hoops or play the academia game. Discuss Mormonism offers freedom of speech and a venue in which one can say what they will.

Yep! That is your choice. Don made his choice. You chose differently. Nothing wrong with that in either case.

[msnobody]

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!

I don’t think Bradley is obligated to respond. I don’t think he reads here much, if at all. Maybe one day he can or will chime in.

I’d have to read the thread to give my thoughts, but my thoughts may not be well informed.