It is currently Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:36 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 322 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:28 pm 
Star A

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 94
onandagus wrote:
Socrates wrote:
Tangential to what?


This conversational circle?

See thread topic.

TTFN,

Don

Do you not think that Joseph Smith, Jr.'s 'sight and power' to translate came from God? Do you dispute D&C section 3:12?

_________________
Mr. Nightlion, "God needs a valid stooge nation and people to play off to wind up the scene."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:47 pm 
High Priest

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:06 am
Posts: 385
Socrates wrote:
Do you not think that Joseph Smith, Jr.'s 'sight and power' to translate came from God? Do you dispute D&C section 3:12?


Socrates, seriously, you are just being obnoxiously persistent, and also tangential to the topic. I'm not obliged to cover every topic under the sun that relates to Mormonism. I came here to discuss the theory I've advanced on the Kinderhook plates, which is about character matching, and not about D&C 3:12. I don't deny D&C 3:12, but it has nothing to do with the topic.

If you're willing to squander good will and get yourself blocked in order to continue to try to press me into the topic you think I should've come here to talk about, by all means continue.

Don

_________________
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic."
- Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:55 pm 
Star A

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 94
onandagus wrote:
Socrates wrote:
Do you not think that Joseph Smith, Jr.'s 'sight and power' to translate came from God? Do you dispute D&C section 3:12?


Socrates, seriously, you are just being obnoxiously persistent, and also tangential to the topic. I'm not obliged to cover every topic under the sun that relates to Mormonism. I came here to discuss the theory I've advanced on the Kinderhook plates, which is about character matching, and not about D&C 3:12. I don't deny D&C 3:12, but it has nothing to do with the topic.

If you're willing to squander good will and get yourself blocked in order to continue to try to press me into the topic you think I should've come here to talk about, by all means continue.

Don

Can you provide an explanation how finding historical evidence of the mechanism, a character comparison to a God-given lexicon, dispels the notion that revelation was involved, and it was Joseph Smith, Jr. sans God?

_________________
Mr. Nightlion, "God needs a valid stooge nation and people to play off to wind up the scene."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:05 pm 
High Priest

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:06 am
Posts: 385
Socrates wrote:
Can you provide an explanation how finding historical evidence of the mechanism, a character comparison to a God-given lexicon, dispels the notion that revelation was involved, and it was Joseph Smith, Jr. sans God?


Discussed at great length by me above. I haven't said it rules out revelation. I've pointed out that it makes it redundant.

If you're not satisfied with my answers, fine. But don't pretend I haven't laid them out.

_________________
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic."
- Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:06 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 11935
Socrates wrote:
Can you provide an explanation how finding historical evidence of the mechanism, a character comparison to a God-given lexicon, dispels the notion that revelation was involved, and it was Joseph Smith, Jr. sans God?


Even if the Gael is God given, it does not mean one cannot take it and match up a character on any other made up document. Don's arguments as I understand them is that Joseph saw a character on the KP that matched one on the Gael, and that Clayton's statement of what Joseph said matches what the Gael said it would mean. The idea here is that Joesph did not need revelation to match up characters. This is done all the time in apologia and then claimed as evidence for some LDS claim. This of course does not deal with the question of why a guy who claims to be a seer, revelator, translator of ancient languages, and is getting revelations on a regular basis did not seek revelation here, but then I don't think Don intended to deal with those questions.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:00 pm 
High Priest

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:06 am
Posts: 385
Themis wrote:
Even if the Gael is God given, it does not mean one cannot take it and match up a character on any other made up document. Don's arguments as I understand them is that Joseph saw a character on the KP that matched one on the Gael, and that Clayton's statement of what Joseph said matches what the Gael said it would mean. The idea here is that Joesph did not need revelation to match up characters. This is done all the time in apologia and then claimed as evidence for some LDS claim. This of course does not deal with the question of why a guy who claims to be a seer, revelator, translator of ancient languages, and is getting revelations on a regular basis did not seek revelation here, but then I don't think Don intended to deal with those questions.


Bingo!!

Don

_________________
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic."
- Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:49 am 
God

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 1464
onandagus wrote:
Themis wrote:
Even if the Gael is God given, it does not mean one cannot take it and match up a character on any other made up document. Don's arguments as I understand them is that Joseph saw a character on the KP that matched one on the Gael, and that Clayton's statement of what Joseph said matches what the Gael said it would mean. The idea here is that Joesph did not need revelation to match up characters. This is done all the time in apologia and then claimed as evidence for some LDS claim. This of course does not deal with the question of why a guy who claims to be a seer, revelator, translator of ancient languages, and is getting revelations on a regular basis did not seek revelation here, but then I don't think Don intended to deal with those questions.


Bingo!!

Don


Don,

Do you have any idea/have you spent time considering/researching how the character on the hoax KP came to match the one on the revelatory GAEL?

_________________
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)

Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:18 am 
Regional Representative

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:49 am
Posts: 645
onandagus wrote:
Themis wrote:
Even if the Gael is God given, it does not mean one cannot take it and match up a character on any other made up document. Don's arguments as I understand them is that Joseph saw a character on the KP that matched one on the Gael, and that Clayton's statement of what Joseph said matches what the Gael said it would mean. The idea here is that Joesph did not need revelation to match up characters. This is done all the time in apologia and then claimed as evidence for some LDS claim. This of course does not deal with the question of why a guy who claims to be a seer, revelator, translator of ancient languages, and is getting revelations on a regular basis did not seek revelation here, but then I don't think Don intended to deal with those questions.


Bingo!!

Don


While that is certainly true, matching up one character, sort of, does not give a real scholar enough information to declare from there that:
(1) the symbol has the same meaning on both the KP and the GAEL;
(2) The KP contains the of history of the person referenced by the symbol; or
(3) the person referenced by the symbol was buried with plates.

To reach those additional conclusions one either needs revelatory skills, or a willingness to make stuff up. You can't get there by just being an incompetent scholar.

When the person who has the inclination to make stuff up, is perceived by his followers to be a profit of God, he knows fully well that when he makes stuff up, his followers will treat it as prophetic insight, and not merely another surmise.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:59 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
Themis wrote:
Socrates wrote:
Can you provide an explanation how finding historical evidence of the mechanism, a character comparison to a God-given lexicon, dispels the notion that revelation was involved, and it was Joseph Smith, Jr. sans God?


Even if the Gael is God given, it does not mean one cannot take it and match up a character on any other made up document. Don's arguments as I understand them is that Joseph saw a character on the KP that matched one on the Gael, and that Clayton's statement of what Joseph said matches what the Gael said it would mean. The idea here is that Joesph did not need revelation to match up characters. This is done all the time in apologia and then claimed as evidence for some LDS claim. This of course does not deal with the question of why a guy who claims to be a seer, revelator, translator of ancient languages, and is getting revelations on a regular basis did not seek revelation here, but then I don't think Don intended to deal with those questions.


So the implication here is that, when it comes to translating, Joseph was a bit of a dim bulb?

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:59 am 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 11935
Jaybear wrote:

To reach those additional conclusions one either needs revelatory skills, or a willingness to make stuff up. You can't get there by just being an incompetent scholar.


I don't think Don is suggesting that Joseph was even a scholar. I think he does suggest that Joseph was surmising, and the extra info really is not that much, or even that important.

Quote:
When the person who has the inclination to make stuff up, is perceived by his followers to be a profit of God, he knows fully well that when he makes stuff up, his followers will treat it as prophetic insight, and not merely another surmise.


Probably. I tend to think if Joseph was a real prophet he would have asked for divine information about the KP. He claimed to do so on many many occasions and about things more trivial.

Quote:
Buffalo

So the implication here is that, when it comes to translating, Joseph was a bit of a dim bulb?


He would have to be if he were a real prophet not to ask God about it. As a pious fraud he would not need to be a dim bulb at all. He just made things up he knew believers would believe.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:01 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Themis wrote:
wenglund wrote:
A method told to you by men, and a method in which you can get any answer you want, which is great because people will use this method to ignore any amount of evidence. A method in which emotions are vital. Emotions may be the best way to keep people believing anything. Emotions tend to create strong attachments to certain beliefs no matter how irrational they are.


You have stated your prejudices before. You are entitled to them, just as I am entitled to view your vacuous opining as devoid of value to me and my life. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:08 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Dad of a Mormon wrote:
wenglund wrote:
I let God, rather than man, tell me whether it was revealed and "right" in his eyes. But, to each their own.


Yeah, me too.

Of course, I don't think God really exists, but if he/she does, I'm quite confident that he/she can make that readily apparent and tell me whatever he/she wants.

Nevertheless, in the mean time, I'm not going to let people claim that they speak for God and accept them at their word when there is no evidence whatsoever to back up their claim.


I am certainly not speaking for God. I am letting him speak for himself, and this to those with ears to hear. I am just sharing with you what I believe he has told me and other believing members. You can take it or leave it, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:25 am 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 11935
wenglund wrote:
You have stated your prejudices before. You are entitled to them, just as I am entitled to view your vacuous opining as devoid of value to me and my life. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I just understand where you come from. :) You can believe what ever you want Wade.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:30 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
malkie wrote:
Please accept #2. as an olive branch extended in your direction from someone who will likely remain critical of your religion while attempting to refrain from criticism of defenders of your faith, especially yourself.


Olive branch warmly accepted by one who isn't adverse to considering differing views of his faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:39 am 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 11935
wenglund wrote:
Olive branch warmly accepted by one who isn't adverse to considering differing views of his faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I am open to differing views. It's just that you have nor provided one I am not already very familiar with.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:09 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Themis wrote:
I am open to differing views. It's just that you have nor provided one I am not already very familiar with.


Likewise. That makes us even. Have a nice day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:38 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 11935
wenglund wrote:

Likewise. That makes us even. Have a nice day.


Sorry haven't seen it from youtr posts. You also have ignored these.

Quote:
Joseph's translation differs from from Egyptologists like night and day.


Quote:
Buffalo

Joseph got almost all of it wrong - that's a fact. Any credible Egyptologist will agree with that, not just "certain" Egyptologists. You're being disingenuous here, Wade. You're entitled to your religious beliefs, but at least don't misrepresent the facts.


We all know why you did, so have a nice your day yourself. :)

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Themis wrote:
Sorry haven't seen it from your posts.


Likewise. That makes us even. Have a nice night.

Quote:
You also have ignored these.

We all know why you did, so have a nice your day yourself. :)


We all know that you don't know what you are talking about. So, again, we are even. Have a nice night..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:03 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 11935
wenglund wrote:

We all know that you don't know what you are talking about. So, again, we are even. Have a nice night..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


And yet you cannot back up what you were saying. LOL Have a good night Wade.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:58 pm 
Star A

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 94
On August 7, 2011, two days after his FAIR presentation, onandagus was more definitive and declarative about his findings than he is now. He has clearly claimed that the character match and revelation are mutually exclusive.

onandagus wrote:
Here's the gist:

The content Clayton says Joseph got from the Kinderhook plates can all be derived from a single character definition given in the GAEL. A character matching the one thus-defined is found at the top of one of the Kinderhook plates and is even arguably the most prominent character on the plates.

Joseph Smith could thus have derived the entire "translation" from the Kinderhook plates by a simple character match. And--in fact--I have an eyewitness account, written six days after the Clayton journal entry, in which someone sees Joseph comparing these characters and identifying a match, using the "Egyptian alphabet"--the GAEL.

Making a visual match of characters is not revelatory: it's something anyone can do. Thus Joseph's reported translation from the Kinderhook plates is not a revelatory one, but a visual and intellectual one.

I hope that's clearer.

Don


Don continued as late as August 15, 2011 at 8:06 p.m.

onandagus wrote:
Since that's not a revelation from God but merely a character match, it actually doesn't heighten my sense of how God works in mysterious ways.


Finally at 9:05 p.m. on August 15,

onandagus wrote:
Discussed at great length by me above. I haven't said it [character match] rules out revelation. I've pointed out that it makes it redundant.


No longer does the fact of a character match exclude revelation. It's just not likely now, due to 'redundancy'. Of course, Don continues to cling to the canard that it follows from the character match by the 'prophet, seer, translator and revelator', for whom God gives the 'power and light' for translation (D&C 3:12), that God had no part. God must, therefore, only work in mysterious, unnatural ways.

Don had claimed back on August 7, 2011, two days after the presentation, that all of Clayton's report about the Kinderhook Plates partial translation derives from the character match and corresponding GAEL explanation of the character. See the first quote in this post.

However, Don has since (August 8, 2011) answered that the part of Clayton's description that goes beyond what the GAEL explanation for the matched character will be explained by Ashurst-McGee.

onandagus wrote:
Regarding the identification of the guy with whom the plates were buried as the descendant of Ham, this is easily accounted for in the scenario I'm proposing and will be explained in my joint paper with Mark Ashurst-McGee. I hesitate to lay out that part of the paper since it wasn't in my presentation and is something Mark, and not I, came up with. I hate to put you off like that, but look for the paper in the Journal of Mormon History, hopefully next year.


Seems Don's August 7 statement about "all" of Clayton's description being attributed to the GAEL explanation for the matching character isn't really "all" after all.

onandagus has also said recently that his 'demolition' of the criticism was just pre-presentation hype, a la Schryver, and he on reflection, should not have done it. See http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/styles/Revival/imageset/icon_post_target.gif where on August 15, he explained:

onandagus wrote:
The tack I took in the pre-conference 'hype' was purely experimental. On reflection now, I'd say that I wouldn't expect to repeat it for future presentations and publications.


Yet after the presentation, and hype could attract no more attendees to his FAIR presentation, Don continued the 'hype' on August 7, 2011:

onandagus wrote:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=489175#p489175


So, Don, what is taking place? Is this the unraveling of your theory that we saw with Schryver's last year, post-presentation?

_________________
Mr. Nightlion, "God needs a valid stooge nation and people to play off to wind up the scene."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:01 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:44 am
Posts: 3325
Location: Dallas, Texas
Good points, all. Also interesting is that Don has repeatedly failed to even attempt to answer my question: where did the English translation of the character on the GAEL come from? Don's whole theory, it seems to me, depends on the fact that Joseph Smith noticed the similarities between a character on the KP and a character on the GAEL and gave the translation of the KP character based on what the GAEL said the character meant. But he has steadfastly refused to address the question of where the translation of the character on the GAEL came from. I have asked many times for a reference to a non-Mormon, secular, academic source that renders an English translation of the character on the GAEL as having to do with Ham and the priestly descent, etc. (as it is rendered in the Book of Abraham and in Clayton's report of Joseph Smith's translation of the KP. Don simply ignores the question, I suspect because there IS no secular, academic translation of the character on the KP/GAEL that correlates with Smith's rendering. We are thus left with two possibilities: either Joseph Smith concocted the "translation" or he got it supernaturally, both of which contradict Don's conclusion that Joseph Smith translated the KP by "secular" or "academic" means. Don's research, while interesting and commendable in the realm of history, does absolutely nothing to confound the critical appraisal of Smith's "translation" of the Kinderhook Plates. I pose the question again for Don, or any other apologist that wants to take up the challenge: show me a non-Mormon academic source that says the character "ho e oop hah," which Don says is the one Smith saw as a "match" for a character on the KP, means something about a descendant of Ham, yadda yadda yadda yadda. If you can't do that, you have done nothing to assail the critics' argument that Joseph Smith: (a) made ____ up; (b) claimed to translate by revelation, but clearly could not; and (c) was fooled by the hoaxsters who forged the Kinderhook Plates. Likewise, the purported "prophets, seers, and revelators" who followed in Smith's footsteps were fooled and lacked the "gift of discernment," which, if they were in possession of the same, would have enabled them to expose the hoax.

_________________
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain
"The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 322 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group