Jump to content

DonBradley

Contributor
  • Content count

    937
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

804 Excellent

About DonBradley

  • Rank
    Individualist in the service of a community
  • Birthday October 24

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Utah

Recent Profile Visitors

2,454 profile views
  1. DonBradley

    Is the Book of Mormon Satan anachronistic?

    Just saw this thread. Yes, he's anachronistic. But do you dare tell him that?!
  2. DonBradley

    An eyewitness account of Joseph Smith at Nauvoo

    Stories of Joseph Smith's generosity and kindness are myriad. I had to recognize that and try to take into account even when I was a complete non-believer.
  3. DonBradley

    King Follett Sermon Take 2!

    This quote confirms how I've always read the other JS statements that Clark cites, and the KFD where it says that the Father had power in himself to lay down his life and take it up again. We don't have that power. We don't resurrect ourselves by the power within us but, rather, are resurrected by Christ's power. The implication, made explicit in the December 1841 quote, is that the Father "had redeemed a world"--i.e., had been a Savior. Combining these various statements, Joseph seems to have understood that the third member of the Godhead later becomes the second, in a later Godhead, and ultimately the first. This view would also account for Joseph saying in the KFD that the Christ had seen the Father lay down his life and take it up again--Christ was then a "Holy Ghost" while the Father was a Savior. Where it gets a little trickier to understand Joseph's views is how all this relates to us. If Joseph believed that gods move up through these positions in successive Godheads, then he must have believed one of the following: 1) That we become "Holy Ghosts," then saviors, then Fathers; or, 2) That "Godhead gods," as we might call them, are of a different order than us--and that we, thus, never become "Holy Ghosts," saviors, or Fathers. The December 1841 WW Journal quote seems to say the first "& the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory." But I have trouble believing that WW is reporting the detail here closely enough to make that step. Joseph preaches elsewhere about how our bodies will rise from our graves here on this earth. If we are not resurrected until after a stint as a "Holy Ghost," this wouldn't happen on this earth, and not with these bodies. Viewing Joseph as holding proposition #1 above would require seeing him as not really believing the doctrine of resurrection that he preached much more often than he seemingly preached this other idea. So it seems more likely that Joseph held "Godhead gods" to be a separate order from us, with the implications that 1) contrary to the evangelical critique of King Follett doctrine, God the Father never sinned, and 2) we will never be worshipped, since we will never be Godhead gods. It's interesting to note that in the KFD Joseph appears not to have said that God the Father once dwelt on an earth the same as we do, but that He once dwelt on an earth the same as Christ did. I'm not sure how I personally feel about all this. I certainly believe that we can be deified in a very robust sense. But I have trouble thinking we are of the same order as God the Father and Christ or desiring to be worshipped. Also, while I don't claim to know anything here, I'm fond of Blake's idea that God the Father is the ultimate Source or font of all divinity. I certainly worship Him as such. In any case, Joseph's various teachings on the subject may suggest some new wrinkles or lines of interpretation for the LDS doctrine of deification. Don
  4. I don't see the actions described as morally equivalent.
  5. An ex-Mormon who has deceitfully sneaked through the temple scores of times making videos was trying to destroy a presidential candidate simply for being Mormon by doctoring temple footage to make it appear that Mitt Romney worshipped Satan and you think that the Mormons should be ashamed of this episode?
  6. Dang, Blueglass and Hope For Things, I would have loved to have met you there. Or did I? I guess I wouldn't have known if I did! Yeah, it was a really great presentation. He was going fast trying to fit everything in. Don
  7. What kind of rascal would write such a thing?!
  8. I agree that Taves is suggesting a middle ground for discussion. And I think that so far as the bare fact of there being plates is concerned, she does offer such a potential middle ground. I also agree with Smac that her hypothesis, as presented, doesn't address, and doesn't appear to be intended to address, the details of Joseph Smith's narrative of recovering the plates. If a full middle ground position were to be staked out, it would need to be able to account for those details. Don
  9. Hope, Thanks for the podcast recommendation. I'll have to give it a listen. The D&C 7 analogy is interesting. John is said to have "hid up" the record. But John was a translated being at the time, suggesting that he could have "hid up" the record on either an earthly or a heavenly plane. Don
  10. Analytics, Ah, very interesting. Good point about the plates not being physically necessary to the translation. And interesting spiritual option for the reality of the plates. It makes me think of the idea of the "Akashic record" that is supposed to record everything that's happened. Thanks, Don
  11. Yeah. This is the kind of idea I had in mind. Is the Lamb's Book of Life an actual material book? And if it is, would it make a difference it were composed of physical matter or of spirit matter? Joseph obviously describes the plates as having been a physical object buried by Moroni. But I'm interested in these kinds of ideas within the bounds of Taves's hypothesis. Don
  12. Bob, Interesting re: Jan Shipps. She has also said before that she thinks Joseph may have found an actual artifact. Don
  13. Rajah, Fascinating! I had somehow overlooked this in Taves's paper. But this is the kind of thing I've had in mind. Thanks, Don
  14. Smac, I agree that in her attempt to deal with the plates there are a host of questions that Taves's hypothesis doesn't address regarding Joseph's narrative about the plates. What I'm trying to wrap my head around is what kind of reality people might accord to the plates under Taves's hypothesis. Don
×