It is currently Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:57 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 322 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:08 am 
High Priest

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 385
Socrates,

There are shades of meaning here that you're missing. And if I have not been perfectly consistent in my many comments, so be it. Do you suppose that if someone who values his time as little as you value yours were to collect your various statements they would all come out consistent? I wouldn't bet on it.

But let me briefly recap in case you've misunderstood my arguments over the course of this discussion:

I argued that Joseph Smith could "readily derive" the entire reported translation from the single GAEL character--the content was there. That Joseph Smith identified the person with whom the plates were buried as their author is not part of the translation, since the plates wouldn't have said "I just buried these plates with my corpse in this mound." Rather, the connection between the record and the person it was buried with is a natural surmise.

The character match--as I've shown--is visual and not revelatory. Thus the known translation that Joseph did was nonrevelatory. If someone wants to posit that somehow it really was also revelatory, they're free to do so, but this adds nothing to the explanation, and is thus redundant. I made this argument on one or both of the boards. If it was only on the other board and not this one, sue me. I can't recall in these sprawling discussions where I've posted what.

Now let's look at a sample of your misrepresentation of me:

Socrates wrote:
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



When I acknowledged that the pre-conference talk had an element of hype, I also reiterated that I believe my argument does demolish the critical argument.

Also, when I said I'd reconsidered posting like that in advance of a presentation, I said this after Scratch called me on it a couple days ago. So, on August 7 I still had not reconsidered this.

Thus despite your attempts to make it look like there are contradictions here, there are none.


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


To quote Aerosmith, dream on.

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: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:14 am 
High Priest

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 385
Equality wrote:
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.


The derivation of the GAEL definition is simply irrelevant to the argument I've been trying to make and is a red herring tactic you've been using to avoid having to acknowledge the refutation of your precious Kinderhook plates argument.

I came here to discuss the content of my presentation because Analytics had posted about it and asked questions about it. It does not follow from that that I have an obligation to carry out the discussion the way you want me to. Your "challenge" has nothing to do with my topic.

The fact is that I've addressed all sorts of obnoxious questions asked me here. But I see no reason to continue answering them.

If I come here sometime to discuss the source of the GAEL, I'll discuss the source of the GAEL. If you want to believe my not addressing that separate topic here in order to claim victory in the discussion of the Kinderhook plates, please refer to the last sentence of my reply to Socrates.

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: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:30 am 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 6891
Location: Cassius University
onandagus wrote:
Equality wrote:
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.


The derivation of the GAEL definition is simply irrelevant to the argument I've been trying to make and is a red herring tactic you've been using to avoid having to acknowledge the refutation of your precious Kinderhook plates argument.


It's not "irrelevant" at all. Good grief, Don. Why not just concede at this point that your "hype" was misguided? George Miller popped in earlier to weigh in on the notion of a "two-pronged" critique, with your paper attacking one portion of that critique, but without a full and objective and persuasive and believable, doctrine-supported account of the way that revelation works, you are out to sea here. If the Prophet Joseph applied "revelation" in order to get the GAEL character, and if his interested in the KP was inspired by said "revelation," you can't very well dismiss the notion that he felt the KP was also worthy of being regarded on the same level as the initial "revelatory" character.

You haven't "crushed" anything, friend.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Last edited by Doctor Scratch on Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:37 am 
High Priest

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 385
Fellow Discussants,

I came onto this board to discuss the thread topic. While here I've posted a great deal of substantive argument and evidence and, overwhelmingly, I've been very courteous even to posters who have misrepresented my arguments, dismissed me as a rank apologist, and relentlessly harangued me, tried to one-up me, and grandstanded when I supposedly lost the argument by refusing to let them frame it or change the topic at hand. None of these things fit my definition of meaningful discussion: they are its antithesis.

I bring substance and I'm largely polite to other posters. But there is a flipside to this, because I believe in reciprocity. Experience has shown me that there's only so long that I should continue to attempt courteous discussion with others who are determined to attack, misrepresent, one-up, or simply annoy me. Better by far to terminate discussion with those people by selectively blocking posters who show that they aren't willing to attempt to understand me accurately or who show more interest in one-upmanship than substance.

I'm not here for target practice, and I won't continue to engage posters who act as if I am.

I very much appreciate the polite and productive posts by a number of you. I'll forget some of you here whom I should thank. Please pardon that if you fit in this category but I fail to mention you. I've enjoyed the posts by a number, including Grindael, Dan Vogel, Themis, Analytics, Dr. Scratch, Honorentheos, and Malkie, each of whom has genuinely tried to understand my position and arguments and has discussed things agreeably even when disagreeing. If more posters took the approach they've taken, there would be more scholars participating here, more productive discussion, and just a more enjoyable time.

Thanks again to those who've contributed to productive and pleasant discussion on this topic.

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: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:38 am 
High Priest

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 385
Dr. Scratch,

I've plowed this ground so many times already in the last two weeks that I don't see what I would achieve by running my plow over the same furrows yet again in response to this post would achieve. For my response, simply re-read above.

Cheers,

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: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:48 am 
High Priest

Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:06 am
Posts: 385
by the way, I do acknowledge that George has said the critical argument was two-pronged, and he is correct. I believe a review of my posts in the last two weeks, as well as a few years ago, will show that I've generally acknowledged that there is what I consider a strong form of the critical argument from the KPs and a weak form. What I believe I have refuted, and have more than one critic here agreeing with me on, is the first, based on Joseph Smith supposedly making a revelatory translation from the KP, not the second, which just says that a prophet should not have initially taken the KPs' genuineness in good faith but should have been warned by God from the get-go that the KPs were fake.

My pre-conference "hype" didn't acknowledge the second form of the argument, which my presentation did not address. This was an omission on my part, but one rooted in the fact that I do not now and have not ever, even as a critic, thought this argument held any potency.

If I am guilty of hyperbole for overlooking this argument, fine. I really don't see how that changes any of the substance. And I've already acknowledged that the pre-conference "hype" was a mistake and that I won't be repeating it. So if anyone would like to further rub my face in an acknowledged mistake that I won't be repeating, please get the maximum ego satisfaction out of that that you can, 'cuz it ain't good for nothin' else.

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: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:06 am 
abstract
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am
Posts: 3054
Thanks for staying in this discussion for this long Don. I can tell you're getting frustrated, but I don't agree the intent of the critics is rooted in mocking your points, but rather they just don't agree with you.
onandagus wrote:
When I acknowledged that the pre-conference talk had an element of hype, I also reiterated that I believe my argument does demolish the critical argument.

When you say "the" critical argument in the above, just exactly what do you feel the critical argument is? I believe there's more than one:

1) Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, because he made a translation of a known fraud in the Kinderhook plates.
2) Joseph Smith's truth claims regarding his ability to translate ancient languages, to include the golden plates and the Egyptian papyrus, are demonstrably false.
3) The subject Joseph Smith claimed the Kinderhook plates contained regarding the descendant of Ham, proves his claim of having a revelatory "gift" was simply not true.

onandagus wrote:
Equality wrote:
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.


The derivation of the GAEL definition is simply irrelevant to the argument I've been trying to make and is a red herring tactic you've been using to avoid having to acknowledge the refutation of your precious Kinderhook plates argument.

I fail to see how connecting the dots of the one character into English is irrelevant. It is very relevant and should actually be the crux of your argument. Since we know the KP were a hoax, even if Joseph Smith thought he could translate them based on that one character, what are the odds that one character would tell a specific story of the descendant of Ham? What Joseph Smith didn't claim was the plates contained a recipe for baking a cake. How then, does one bridge the gap from a random translation of an unknown subject, to the very specific name of Ham?

onandagus wrote:
by the way, I do acknowledge that George has said the critical argument was two-pronged, and he is correct. I believe a review of my posts in the last two weeks, as well as a few years ago, will show that I've generally acknowledged that there is what I consider a strong form of the critical argument from the KPs and a weak form. What I believe I have refuted, and have more than one critic here agreeing with me on, is the first, based on Joseph Smith supposedly making a revelatory translation from the KP, not the second, which just says that a prophet should not have initially taken the KPs' genuineness in good faith but should have been warned by God from the get-go that the KPs were fake.

I still fail to see how you've refuted the argument Joseph Smith didn't make a revelatory translation. To make that claim, you'd have to show how "Ham" was derived from the one character you claim is a match. If there is no connection, then a revelatory means by a prophet of God is the most logical conclusion. When one attempts to separate "prophet of God" and "man" as two separate roles, what's lost is the supposed time the man is a prophet of God. I see this as binary, as the man is either a prophet of God, or he is not. To substantiate this, you'd have to also claim that Joseph Smith didn't claim to communicate with God after the Kinderhook plates were shown to him.

Thanks

_________________
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:45 am 
Star A

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:40 am
Posts: 94
Don,

Do you similarly deny revelation played any part in the 'translation' of the Book of Mormon because of the Spaulding Theory, as you deny revelation played any part in the 'translation' of the Kinderhook Plates because of the Bradley Theory?

_________________
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: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:58 am 
God

Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:57 am
Posts: 2390
-


Last edited by Hasa Diga Eebowai on Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:46 pm 
World's Top Zion Scientist
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 9811
Location: North Side of The Apocalrock
cinepro wrote:
RockSlider wrote:
How many characters are on the kinderhook plates?


Here's an image of them:

Image


One symbol on the GAEL? Sorry but there are lots of same symbols on the 'Caractors' of the Book of Mormon glyphs. Compare for yourselves. Here is a generic page of them and the Hoffman masterpiece.

Image

Image

No way Joseph Smith did not recognize them. He was making up some fun for the boys.

_________________
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
are now postedHERE search for guitarhead documents
http://apocalblog.blogspot.com/.[/size][/color]
My YouTube videos:HERE
PDF Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:38 pm 
World's Top Zion Scientist
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 9811
Location: North Side of The Apocalrock
What should we suppose Joseph was to do with such an obvious fraud. He could not well denounce the writing as bogus as it is the same writing as his own Book of Mormon glyphs. I guess they thought they could catch him either way. Deny that these are legitimate and face the ridicule of his own known script. Or let it go with a trifle. So he trifled. So what?

Interesting however is the fact that Kinderhook Plates were reportedly found in 1843 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon_Transcriptand the first time the 'Caractors' were published was in The Prophet in December of 1844 after Joseph's death.
This would clue a conspiracy with someone 'in the know' who had access to the 'Caractors' paper and could copy them when making the fake plates.

Somebody ought to start diggin'

And don't nobody suggest that the 'Caractors' script was copied from off the Kinderhook Plates.

_________________
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
are now postedHERE search for guitarhead documents
http://apocalblog.blogspot.com/.[/size][/color]
My YouTube videos:HERE
PDF Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:45 pm 
Star A

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:40 am
Posts: 94
Mr. Nightlion, is your thesis that the KPs were made up by someone that had access to the Anthon 'caractors' and that Joseph Smith, Jr. immediately recognized them for the fraud that they were?

Who do you think in Joseph Smith, Jr.'s inner circle, with access to the Anthon caractors before their publication betrayed him by participating in the KPs fraud? Do you know of some historical records that support the notion that Joseph Smith, Jr. conducted an inquisition or rendered retribution to any whom he suspected in his inner circle of confidantes?

Why would Joseph Smith, Jr. have not thought that all the caractor matches (please specify which caractors appear on the KPs) comprised a bull's eye cluster, if anything leading Joseph Smith, Jr. to conclude that the KPs were thereby proven genuine ancient metal plate records? Wouldn't multiple caractor matches heighten Joseph Smith, Jr.'s interest and belief in the KPs' genuineness rather than make him skeptical, and more than just the one Bradley match?

If Joseph Smith, Jr. immediately recognized the KPs as a fraud, why did he tell Clayton that the KPs actually contained the history of a descendant of Ham, whose bones were found in the mound near Kinderhook when the KPs were found? Was Joseph Smith, Jr. known for giving false information about metal plates to his trusted scribes?

_________________
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 22, 2011 9:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:44 am
Posts: 3329
Location: Dallas, Texas
Nightlion wrote:
What should we suppose Joseph was to do with such an obvious fraud.


I guess the argument here is that Joseph Smith would have known the characters on the Kinderhook plates were fraudulent because they were copied from the fraudulent Book of Mormon characters? Makes sense to me.

_________________
"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  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:20 pm 
World's Top Zion Scientist
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 9811
Location: North Side of The Apocalrock
Equality wrote:
Nightlion wrote:
What should we suppose Joseph was to do with such an obvious fraud.


I guess the argument here is that Joseph Smith would have known the characters on the Kinderhook plates were fraudulent because they were copied from the fraudulent Book of Mormon characters? Makes sense to me.


Once a thing is rightly understood it immediately invents a thousand ways and means to at once
misunderstand. Like putting stake in the ground and saying that here it is. Now anyone can deny that and say, no it is over here, or there, or anywhere but where it is.

_________________
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
are now postedHERE search for guitarhead documents
http://apocalblog.blogspot.com/.[/size][/color]
My YouTube videos:HERE
PDF Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:44 am
Posts: 3329
Location: Dallas, Texas
There shall, in that time, be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things wi-- with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment. At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock. Yea, it is written in the book of Cyril that, in that time, shall the third one...

_________________
"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  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:04 pm 
World's Top Zion Scientist
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 9811
Location: North Side of The Apocalrock
Socrates wrote:
Mr. Nightlion, is your thesis that the KPs were made up by someone that had access to the Anthon 'caractors' and that Joseph Smith, Jr. immediately recognized them for the fraud that they were?

Who do you think in Joseph Smith, Jr.'s inner circle, with access to the Anthon caractors before their publication betrayed him by participating in the KPs fraud? Do you know of some historical records that support the notion that Joseph Smith, Jr. conducted an inquisition or rendered retribution to any whom he suspected in his inner circle of confidantes?

Why would Joseph Smith, Jr. have not thought that all the caractor matches (please specify which caractors appear on the KPs) comprised a bull's eye cluster, if anything leading Joseph Smith, Jr. to conclude that the KPs were thereby proven genuine ancient metal plate records? Wouldn't multiple caractor matches heighten Joseph Smith, Jr.'s interest and belief in the KPs' genuineness rather than make him skeptical, and more than just the one Bradley match?

If Joseph Smith, Jr. immediately recognized the KPs as a fraud, why did he tell Clayton that the KPs actually contained the history of a descendant of Ham, whose bones were found in the mound near Kinderhook when the KPs were found? Was Joseph Smith, Jr. known for giving false information about metal plates to his trusted scribes?

That is my thesis.

No retribution. I see him as resigned to his fate once he saw the die was caste.
I can speak to being betrayed. It changes everything. It can well account for how he trifled with the interpretation of the K-plates. To him these were a writing on the wall and the sign that the end was near for him.

Yes I think I do know WHO the Judas was. It will be another matter to prove any of it. The art of subterfuge is the highest of all the dark arts and getting away with it clean is its mastery. I think we are speaking of a Master Mahan here. For myself I am satisfied as to who it was. I see the evidence trailing this man and his gang of tares. He continued his art for another sixty years completely undetected and successful at the highest level of Mormon authority.

I should expect that if the writing on the K-plates excited Joseph Smith and he was bonded to them with familiar zeal, he would have taken them to heart and seriously studied them rather than dismiss them and tell them to seek out the learned ones about them. Rather, these would have been treasured as sacred and he would scarcely have allowed them to be put out of his hands. His actions bespeak my interpretation well.

_________________
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
are now postedHERE search for guitarhead documents
http://apocalblog.blogspot.com/.[/size][/color]
My YouTube videos:HERE
PDF Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:12 pm 
World's Top Zion Scientist
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 9811
Location: North Side of The Apocalrock
Equality wrote:
There shall, in that time, be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things wi-- with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment. At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock. Yea, it is written in the book of Cyril that, in that time, shall the third one...


Are we invited to a luau? Hoola you trying to foola?

_________________
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
are now postedHERE search for guitarhead documents
http://apocalblog.blogspot.com/.[/size][/color]
My YouTube videos:HERE
PDF Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:44 am
Posts: 3329
Location: Dallas, Texas
Nightlion wrote:
Rather, these would have been treasured as sacred and he would scarcely have allowed them to be put out of his hands.


You mean like the Book of Mormon copyright?

Nightlion wrote:
I see the evidence trailing this man and his gang of tares. He continued his art for another sixty years completely undetected and successful at the highest level of Mormon authority.


Could it be...Wilford Woodruff?

Nightlion wrote:
The art of subterfuge is the highest of all the dark arts


Wait, I thought the highest of the dark arts was the creation of a horcrux. I could swear I read that in some obscure book somewhere. Or heard it in a movie.

_________________
"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  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:13 pm 
World's Top Zion Scientist
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 9811
Location: North Side of The Apocalrock
Equality wrote:

Wait, I thought the highest of the dark arts was the creation of a horcrux. I could swear I read that in some obscure book somewhere. Or heard it in a movie.


Buffalo seems to think I failed to address a great point of yours. Is this it? Or that I should admit Joseph was a fraud? He was not. He 'set up' the Gentiles to continue for God's purposes and endure until the Lord comes that the earth might be held accountable. Much like Moses 'set up' the Jews to be responsible in rejecting Christ. Polygamy helped to serve that purpose because they were NOT getting the gospel even slightly right. To cause them to take themselves as seriously as the Jews did was what the set up was all for. Now their day is done and the consequences of their apostasy will reap the whirlwind upon the whole earth.

God needs a valid stooge nation and people to play off to wind up the scene. This time it will be the Gentiles turn.

_________________
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
are now postedHERE search for guitarhead documents
http://apocalblog.blogspot.com/.[/size][/color]
My YouTube videos:HERE
PDF Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:11 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 4192
Location: Firmly on this earth
Not to resurrect This Thread facetiously however this was a spectacular trip. I hope we can get dreads like this more often here. I hope we haven't run through the whole gamut of interesting discussions.

_________________
"Being and nonbeing arise mutually. Thus not to see the unity of self and other is the fear of life, and not to see the unity of being and nonbeing is the fear of death." Alan Watts

"The problem is most religions proceed to try and explain the truth and then insist that you agree with their explanation." Brad Warner


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Don Bradley’s Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:58 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 6543
Philo Sofee wrote:
Not to resurrect This Thread facetiously however this was a spectacular trip. I hope we can get dreads like this more often here. I hope we haven't run through the whole gamut of interesting discussions.

Thanks for resurrecting a few of these threads, facetiously or not!

There are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, did not catch all of these threads the first time around; for some, many aspects of the information are new, so the indulgence of those more experienced is appreciated in allowing conversations to repeat. Although I have done a fair amount of background reading here to try to get up to speed on current topics, I am continually (and pleasantly) surprised by dormant threads that come to the surface every so often.


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

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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