DiscussMormonism.com

Don,

I know you are deeply familiar with the following racial verse in the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 5:21 wrote:And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a  skin of blackness to come upon them.

I trust you are familiar with the content of a recent article at SCRIPTURE CENTRAL: What Is the “Skin of Blackness” in the Book of Mormon?

SCRIPTURE CENTRAL wrote:

• For many modern readers, these and similar passages in the Book of Mormon are understandably jarring in their seemingly “racist concepts of nonwhite racial inferiority as contrasted with white racial superiority.”

• “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse.”

• Despite this pronouncement, some scholars persist in reading the Book of Mormon through an old racial lens, albeit often with the twist that this lens actually subverts the racism of the nineteenth century.

• Likewise, the “skin of blackness” Nephi describes falling upon the Lamanites was not necessarily physical but was given in the context of some people violating the Lord’s covenant and thereby being “cut off from the presence of the Lord,” bringing upon themselves the sore cursing that Lehi had warned of previously.

• It is easy—even natural—for modern readers of the Book of Mormon to intuitively see contemporary sensibilities regarding race and skin color in passages about a “skin of blackness” or “dark skins,” but such interpretations are misplaced when reading an ancient text.

So, I was wondering what your position on this matter is because I resumed reading your book (The Lost 116 Pages) and came upon this statement (emphasis added):

Don Bradley, p.172 wrote:Nephi attributed to the curse several secondary effects on the Lamanites: "because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey" (2 Ne. 5:21-24). To keep his own people from this curse, Nephi prophetically prohibits the Nephites from marrying Lamanites, claiming that the Lamanites were marked with "a skin of blackness" to discourage such intermarriage (vv. 21-23).

However, despite their genetic and geographical isolation, the Lamanites were to fulfill an important function in the Nephite covenant. If Nephi's people failed to keep God's commandments—a condition for their prospering in their land of promise—then:

[The Lamanites] shall be a scourge unto [Nephi's] seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and insomuch as they will not hearken unto me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction. (2 Ne. 5:25)

This threat and promise would shape much of the rest of Nephite history.

Nephi, Laman, and Lemuel were brothers having the same mother and father. Please explain your use of genetic in association with seed as it relates to the curse at hand.

Thank you.

Shulem

I guess the problem for me is that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text. It is a 19th century text. So this apologetic doesn’t work for me. Also, I don’t think the prejudices of antiquity are any better than the prejudices of today. They are different, but not really less offensive in some kind of abstract way.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2024 1:27 am

I guess the problem for me is that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text. It is a 19th century text. So this apologetic doesn’t work for me. Also, I don’t think the prejudices of antiquity are any better than the prejudices of today. They are different, but not really less offensive in some kind of abstract way.

I agree that the Book of Mormon is not ancient text but is entirely the product of Smith's imagination other than whole verses ripped from the 1611 KJV Bible and arranged in such a manner to make the book appear authentic and biblical. The prejudices (bad behavior) therein are no worse than prejudices of our time and can't be justified from a loving point of view. Humanity in all ages should suppose God is love and not a respecter of persons.

Here's to hoping Bradley pops in to explain his position and exactly what he means by employing the word "genetic" in describing efforts enforced by racist King Nephi in forbidding his people (no exceptions granted) from marrying outside his self-righteous clan. There is simply nothing inspiring about that kind of religious law which made no provisions for Lamanite defectors or orphans. It simply painted all Lamanites as black, dark, and evil people who are not allowed to penetrate Nephi's cult.

We will have to see if Don pops in and explains himself. The chapter in question makes some interesting comparisons between the biblical murderous conquest of Joshua in Canaan and Nephi's conquest in establishing his own kingdom -- a racist cult!

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2024 1:27 am

Also, I don’t think the prejudices of antiquity are any better than the prejudices of today. They are different, but not really less offensive in some kind of abstract way.

So take that, fictional Book of Mormon characters! Be less abstract and offensive. Seek to emulate the nobility of Samwise Gamgee or the zen of Johnathan Livingston Seagull!

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse.”

I have to wonder what that means, specifically, in terms of an action, or actions. What has the Church actually done as an act of disavowing it. For instance, the racist scriptures are still in The Book of Mormon. They haven’t been removed. How can you disavow something you simultaneously testify is true?

The Church wants to get away with saying it disavows past theories about black skin, without actually disavowing what is said in the Book of Mormon. Ask any General Authority if part of The Book of Mormon has been disavowed by the Church, then watch them try to not answer you.

If the Church meant what it said, it would have removed passages from The Book of Mormon. As for Don Bradley, he’s big on making assertions, less big on answering questions about those assertions.

Shulem wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2024 2:31 am

I agree that the Book of Mormon is not ancient text but is entirely the product of Smith's imagination other than whole verses ripped from the 1611 KJV Bible and arranged in such a manner to make the book appear authentic and biblical. The prejudices (bad behavior) therein are no worse than prejudices of our time and can't be justified from a loving point of view. Humanity in all ages should suppose God is love and not a respecter of persons.

Everyone’s ideas come from somewhere or someone else. So, yeah, product of his imagination, but also the product of his culture, and a very particular set of influences and choices.

In my view, Book of Mormon struggles with the issue of race, and by the end racism is shown to be a loser of an idea. Joseph Smith wrote that into the book on purpose.

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2024 10:49 am

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse.”

I have to wonder what that means, specifically, in terms of an action, or actions. What has the Church actually done as an act of disavowing it. For instance, the racist scriptures are still in The Book of Mormon. They haven’t been removed. How can you disavow something you simultaneously testify is true?

The Church wants to get away with saying it disavows past theories about black skin, without actually disavowing what is said in the Book of Mormon. Ask any General Authority if part of The Book of Mormon has been disavowed by the Church, then watch them try to not answer you.

If the Church meant what it said, it would have removed passages from The Book of Mormon. As for Don Bradley, he’s big on making assertions, less big on answering questions about those assertions.

The apologetic twisting and turning of the text regarding the skin of blackness throws the entire church of previous generations under the bus. Former saints would be aghast to learn that modern apologetic saints disavow basic understanding of the entire church as it was in former times! Whole generations of former Mormonism would be gobsmacked if they knew how modern Mormons threw them under the bus and disregard scriptural views and interpretations of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and the entire population of the Church.

2 Nephi 5:21 wrote:And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a  skin of blackness to come upon them.

So, who was it that caused the cursing to come upon the Lamanites? Who was it that did cause the Lamanites to become like a flint having a skin of blackness? Who was it that did cause the  serpents (Ether 9:33) to pursue the people no more? Who caused (Ether 6:5) that there should be a  furious wind blow upon the face of the waters! It was God who cursed the Lamanites and who forced and placed dark skin upon them! The Lamanites had no choice because they were were cursed and their skins were darkened whether they liked it or not. They had no choice in the matter and neither did their offspring or those that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing whether they like it or not, they have no choice because the Lord spake it, and it was done.

The message of the text rings loud and clear! And this is why I would like to know why Don Bradley mentions genetic isolation in the descriptive narrative concerning intermarriage between people of different skin color. The text explicitly implies that God caused the Lamanites to darken so that the Nephites would not be enticed to intermarry. The Nephites were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome but the Lamanites had become darkened like flints and we can only imagine how much they must have hated that! For once they were fair and white like their brethren but now have become dark and loathsome and it must have distressed them considerably. Isn't that right, Don?

Shulem, there is significant difficulty for members and the Church in the scripture you have referenced.
"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a  skin of blackness to come upon them."

Does the Church, do members, believe this is a true and accurate recounting of events as Nephi experienced them? If Yes, then the Church and members believe a black skin was/is a consequence of God "marking" sinful people and they don't disavow it.

If No, then where does that leave Nephi's credibility? If No, how do they explain such an error within supposedly the most correct book, that was divinely given?

If one accepts that the above scripture was likely influenced by Joseph's thoughts and that it doesn't reflect what actually happened, then that context can be applied to the whole Book of Mormon i.e. Joseph is the source, rather than ancient gold plates.

Will we ever hear Don's explanation?

Bottom Line:
If it isn't an accurate reflection of what actually happened...then we cannot take as "accurate" anything else within The Book of Mormon.
If it is an accurate reflection of what actually happened...then the Church has disavowed its own foundational scriptural canon.

Where did you come to learn that Don Bradley wrote this? Did he? Where is he credited?

In any case, proof-texting racism is an easy thing to do. Interpreting how that racism ends up serving the civilization that exterminates itself takes a little more thought.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2024 11:36 am

Everyone’s ideas come from somewhere or someone else. So, yeah, product of his imagination, but also the product of his culture, and a very particular set of influences and choices.

In my view, Book of Mormon struggles with the issue of race, and by the end racism is shown to be a loser of an idea. Joseph Smith wrote that into the book on purpose.

Similarly, another book of scripture (Stoopid Book of Abraham) contains ideas that Smith adopted into his imaginative writings that were influenced by culture and influences of his times with regard to *when* Egypt was first founded and *who* established it. I've covered this and provided excellent documentation in the Celestial forum:

Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

Thus, we can compare how Smith borrowed and adopted ideas of racism prevalent in his times and punctuated it in the covers of the Book of Mormon just as he did with information of his day in coming up with a false tale of how Egypt was founded. Today, the Church plays both sides of the fence in trying to satisfy chapel Mormons (2300 BC) with Internet Mormons (3000 BC) with regard to when dynastic Egypt was first founded. But incredibly, the Church totally ignores predynastic Egypt with it's doubletalk and apologists are fine with that because they love to ignore the truth while fostering and defending Book of Abraham lies. Apologists have not figured out a way to justify the contradiction between 2300 BC vs. 3000 BC because numbers are numbers and do not lie. But apologists can take racism in the Book of Mormon and twist and distort the meanings in order to make it somewhat palatable for less intelligent readers to accept as Mormonism continues to dumb down. I want to find out just how honest Don Bradley is.

So, what do you think of that, Don? Will you rise above that and denounce chapter one of the Book of Abraham as a false telling of how and when Egypt was founded? Can you do that? Will you?