Question for Don Bradley

[Shulem]

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.

I'm confident that readers would like to know what you think Bradley means based on what he said in his book as quoted in the opening post. Nobody here has offered their understanding of what Bradley was implying regarding the skin of blackness and the Lamanite curse in connection with genetic isolation. Readers have the right to chime in and interpret what they think Bradley meant.

Speak up, please! That includes Kish and the BYP. Let's hear your scholarly & academic opinion of what Bradley was implying in his book. Perhaps you are aware of other sources in which he discussed this matter? If the author doesn't want to come here and answer a question and explain himself then so be it. We can explain it for him! And we will!

[Kishkumen]

My interpretation of what Don wrote is that Nephites generally did not marry Lamanites, and the latter group was thus genetically isolated from the former group.

[Shulem]

My interpretation of what Don wrote is that Nephites generally did not marry Lamanites, and the latter group was thus genetically isolated from the former group.

Thank you for your input.

[Kishkumen]

My interpretation of what Don wrote is that Nephites generally did not marry Lamanites, and the latter group was thus genetically isolated from the former group.

Thank you for your input.

I would add that "genetic" may have been a poor choice of words for a couple of reasons:

1. Joseph Smith did not know the first thing about DNA and genetics.

2. Eugenics doesn't really become a thing until much later in the 19th century.

The problem here, I am supposing, is that the modern conversation has shifted to genetics because of Murphy et al. showing that the New World does not have Hebrew DNA at the right time to support the historicity of a migration of Hebrews to the New World then. I don't think Don should have stepped into this conversation in his book by employing this term because the DNA issue really has little to do with what he is talking about. It is a distraction from the main purpose of the book.

In a sense, I have no dog in this fight because there is no question in my mind that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century text that contains 19th century ideas about lineage, race, etc. If I were to argue for any kind of antiquity for the Book of Mormon, it would probably be something more like the case of Vergil's Aeneid, where the Romans cathected with the Greek myth of the Fall of Troy and adapted it to their own purposes.

According to this view, later indigenous Americans encountered Christianity and formed their own myth placing them in Biblical mythology. Now, the easiest solution will always be that Joseph Smith did this in the 19th century, but I do see an outside possibility that a 19th century indigenous person participated in this process. There are too many elements in there that point to the Iroquois culture of Smith's day to ignore. So, even if there is indigenous participation, the chances of it being ancient are very small. Still, I think the Romans and Troy provides some kind of model for thinking about ancient peoples who tie themselves to an older mythology of another group.

[Shulem]

My interpretation of what Don wrote is that Nephites generally did not marry Lamanites, and the latter group was thus genetically isolated from the former group.

I would add that "genetic" may have been a poor choice of words for a couple of reasons:

1. Joseph Smith did not know the first thing about DNA and genetics.

2. Eugenics doesn't really become a thing until much later in the 19th century.

The problem here, I am supposing, is that the modern conversation has shifted to genetics because of Murphy et al. showing that the New World does not have Hebrew DNA at the right time to support the historicity of a migration of Hebrews to the New World then. I don't think Don should have stepped into this conversation in his book by employing this term because the DNA issue really has little to do with what he is talking about. It is a distraction from the main purpose of the book.

Bradley uses the scientific word "genetic" for the sole purpose of differentiating between traits that diversify humans. He employs the use of the word immediately after this: "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." Then Bradley tells how the Lamanites shall be a scourge unto Nephi's seed which showcases how genetic principles result in skin color.

Bradley opened a can of worms, wouldn't you say? And all this makes me curious about his understanding of what the "skin of blackness" means, especially in light of Nephi saying:

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Also, I think we (including Bradley) can safely employ or use the modern word "genetic" to define a scientific explanation to Jesus's statement he gave to both the Jews and the Nephites:

Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair black or white.

Indeed, it's all about skin color and hair color!

[Shulem]

I would add that "genetic" may have been a poor choice of words for a couple of reasons:

1. Joseph Smith did not know the first thing about DNA and genetics.

2. Eugenics doesn't really become a thing until much later in the 19th century.

You will agree that Joseph Smith understood that babies are products of their parents insomuch as traits such as SKIN COLOR are a natural result of heritage; for example: black babies come from black parents and white babies come from white parents. Smith must have also known that interracial marriage between a white person and a black person results in children having mixed pigmentation -- many such examples of that were known in Smith's times due to interracial marriage of plantation owners and slaves. Now with that said, it's reasonable to think that a great many white people in those times would dare not mix with an African which would naturally result in children having darker skins. Wasn't that strongly discouraged in Smith's culture? I think so! And, I echo that thought when Bradley says, "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."

Thus we see that according to Don Bradley, Nephites were DISCOURGED from intermarrying with the dark Lamanites because they would end up with dark children!

Isn't that right, Kish?

Don?

[Kishkumen]

The key element you are not really dealing with is that Don attributes a claim to Nephi. Don does not support that claim as true. By calling it Nephi’s claim, Don distances himself from the truth of the claim. He may be suggesting that Nephi adopted prejudiced rhetoric to discourage intermarriage because he believed that was what God wanted, and the result of discouraging intermarriage was a genetic isolation of the one group from the other.

[Kishkumen]

Personally, I am a huge fan of the “Nephi was a self-righteous asshole” reading of the Book of Mormon. His dark side really blows up in the faces of the Nephites over the course of the book. They thought they were so great because they viewed their white skins as a sign of righteousness when they were clearly wrong about that. Skin did not matter. Faith did. The Lamanites carry on while the Nephites harden themselves and rush headlong to destruction. Don knows all this stuff, and you should probably give him more credit for the subtlety of his views and language than you do.

[Shulem]

The key element you are not really dealing with is that Don attributes a claim to Nephi.

Isn't that rather obvious? Look, the key element was cited multiple times in this thread beginning with the opening post. I will colorize that key here for your satisfaction:

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.

So, it's readily apparent (from the above) that Nephi is the source for which the claim is given in the first place.

Don does not support that claim as true. By calling it Nephi’s claim, Don distances himself from the truth of the claim.

You're right, Kish; Don does not bear testimony of the truthfulness of Nephi's racism but merely reports it from a scholarly perspective. From what I've gathered, I grow suspicious that Don doesn't believe the Book of Mormon is a historical account but is more in line with inspired fiction. You may recall I said this on page 4 of this thread:

You know what? I'm about 2/3 through Bradley's book and am about to come to the conclusion that he's faking it and really doesn't believe the Book of Mormon is a genuine historical document. I'm starting to think he believes it's inspired fiction and is useful in helping people live a better life by applying religious principles and faith in order to be saved in God.

Now, I'm not sure, but that's how I'm leaning. I'll know more when he gets his ass here in this thread and explain the bit about "genetic isolation" compared to new apologetics that express color as body paint, animal skins, and personal righteousness or the lack thereof

I am somewhat suspicious of Bradley's testimony and would love to hear what he thinks of Book of Mormon racism as expressed in the text.

He may be suggesting that Nephi adopted prejudiced rhetoric to discourage intermarriage because he believed that was what God wanted, and the result of discouraging intermarriage was a genetic isolation of the one group from the other.

Only Don can speak for Don; otherwise, it's left for us to speculate and reason it out for ourselves what he is implying. You know how Book of Abraham apologists blame the scribes for the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and now we see Don Bradley blaming Nephi for Book of Mormon racism?

Hell no, Book of Mormon racism is 100% Joseph Smith's fault. Period!

"The Lord God did cause a  skin of blackness to come upon them."

[Shulem]

Personally, I am a huge fan of the “Nephi was a self-righteous asshole” reading of the Book of Mormon. His dark side really blows up in the faces of the Nephites over the course of the book. They thought they were so great because they viewed their white skins as a sign of righteousness when they were clearly wrong about that. Skin did not matter. Faith did. The Lamanites carry on while the Nephites harden themselves and rush headlong to destruction. Don knows all this stuff, and you should probably give him more credit for the subtlety of his views and language than you do.

Nephi and Joseph Smith are one in the same person!