Question for Don Bradley

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2017 wrote: Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of the Lamanites’ skin was only a mark or sign of the curse.

The apologetic terminology "only a" is used to lesson or walk-back the impact of equating or associating dark skin as a curse. They are trying to separate the two concepts (1) curse (2) skin of blackness, as if they are mutually exclusive when in fact they are inseparably tied together as a single package. The Book of Mormon and Book of Moses narratives makes it quite clear that "a blackness" is not a blessing per se, but was like the curse of Cain put upon those who are less favorable in the sight of God. *THAT* is Joseph Smith's doctrine with regard to having black skin!

Isn't that right, Don? I dare you to deny it!

:twisted:
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by I Have Questions »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Jan 28, 2026 7:52 pm
Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2017 wrote: Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of the Lamanites’ skin was only a mark or sign of the curse.
The apologetic terminology "only a" is used to lesson or walk-back the impact of equating or associating dark skin as a curse. They are trying to separate the two concepts (1) curse (2) skin of blackness, as if they are mutually exclusive when in fact they are inseparably tied together as a single package. The Book of Mormon and Book of Moses narratives makes it quite clear that "a blackness" is not a blessing per se, but was like the curse of Cain put upon those who are less favorable in the sight of God. *THAT* is Joseph Smith's doctrine with regard to having black skin!

Isn't that right, Don? I dare you to deny it!

:twisted:
But the important point is that here you have an official Church manual teaching that dark skin WAS a physical sign of the curse. It renders all the apologetic babbling about animal skins and spiritual darkness apostate nonsense. It also renders “Race And The Priesthood” as dishonest spin doctoring.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

I Have Questions wrote:
Thu Jan 29, 2026 1:55 pm
But the important point is that here you have an official Church manual teaching that dark skin WAS a physical sign of the curse. It renders all the apologetic babbling about animal skins and spiritual darkness apostate nonsense. It also renders “Race And The Priesthood” as dishonest spin doctoring.

Corrupt modern apologists (Don Bradley?) shirk the explanations given by dead Church leaders and opine for the ridiculous/silly idea that skin turning white is merely symbolic. They would have us think this was not really a literal description of human epidermis or biological pigmentation, a "genetic" disposition passed down to posterity (seed) from colored parents. They want us to think it was simply a spiritual lesson that involves a play on words to which I say, "BS"! That apologetic is a lie! And according to Mormonism, "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell." (2 Nephi 9:34) Do you hear me, Don Bradley? Are you caught in a web? Am I the spider and you the fly?

Try applying silly Mormon apologetics to this:

Joseph Smith (at the organization of a school of instruction) wrote:Description of Paul: He is about 5 foot high; very dark hair; dark complexion; dark skin; large Roman nose; sharp face, small black eyes, penetrating as eternity; round shoulders; a whining voice, except when elevated and then it almost resembled the roaring of a lion.

Discourse, 5 January 1841, as Reported by William Clayton

And there you have it! According to Joseph Smith, "dark skin" *is* dark skin, period! No buts about it!

Stoopid Mormons!

:twisted:
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by I Have Questions »

You could make the case that Don and the others are seeking to gaslight people.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

I Have Questions wrote:
Thu Jan 29, 2026 2:47 pm
You could make the case that Don and the others are seeking to gaslight people.

If he comes to this forum and attempts to "gaslight" us, he'll get his ass thoroughly kicked! Make no mistake about it! I will tear him to pieces! No mercy. And Kish won't be able to save him.

Just saying.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

I Have Questions wrote:
Thu Jan 29, 2026 1:55 pm
But the important point is that here you have an official Church manual teaching that dark skin WAS a physical sign of the curse.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, baby! The Church is on record, repeatedly, for equating dark skin with the so-called Curse of Cain.

Here is a clip from the OFFICIAL Sunday School Lessons manual:

Sunday School Lessons, 1929, Vol 2. David O. McKay wrote:Then Cain became afraid and cried out, "My punishment is greater than I can bear, and he that findeth me will slay me." But it was the Lord's right to punish Cain. It is he who knows all we do, either good or bad. So the Lord caused Cain's skin to become dark, "Lest anyone finding him should slay him."

That was the belief of the entire CHURCH in 1929! No exceptions! It was doctrine from official teachings of the prophets, period, end of story. It's very reminiscent to what we read in Nephi: "the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Isn't that right, Don? Or shall we put you in a time machine so you can go back and set things right?

Prophet Don, I can't hear you, speak up please!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

I Have Questions wrote:
Thu Jan 29, 2026 1:55 pm
But the important point is that here you have an official Church manual teaching that dark skin WAS a physical sign of the curse. It renders all the apologetic babbling about animal skins and spiritual darkness apostate nonsense. It also renders “Race And The Priesthood” as dishonest spin doctoring.

Yep, I've bombed this thread with all the authoritative statements that anyone with half a brain would need to figure it out for themselves. But apologists tend to be a bit retarded! God, I hope Bradley isn't one of them! I trust we will find out sooner or later -- or maybe he's just a liar and a faker? What say ye, Don? Are u faking it? ;)
  • Recall on page 18 of this thread: The Juvenile Instructor featuring President George Q. Cannon's "EDITORIAL THOUGHTS" taught in no uncertain terms how the "skin of blackness" was related to the Curse of Cain.
  • Go straight to the Instructor and see the theological article wherein "skin of blackness" (highlighted for your convenience) is mentioned twice.
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by I Have Questions »

I think it is impossible to span the divide between writing on LDS history in a faith promoting way and being intellectually honest. The two things are mutually exclusive. LDS “historians” have to make the choice between one or the other. Something has to be sacrificed - faith, or integrity. Red pill or blue bill. However, given the personal tragedy that Don and his family have suffered, I think he is in the best space to process such a thing.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Elder George Reynolds

Post by Shulem »

I Have Questions wrote:
Fri Jan 30, 2026 9:15 am
I think it is impossible to span the divide between writing on LDS history in a faith promoting way and being intellectually honest. The two things are mutually exclusive. LDS “historians” have to make the choice between one or the other. Something has to be sacrificed - faith, or integrity. Red pill or blue bill. However, given the personal tragedy that Don and his family have suffered, I think he is in the best space to process such a thing.

Thank you for your comments.

Allow me to present George Reynolds who added his testimony to that of the brethren concerning the curse of dark skin that covered Lamanite bodies. I want to entertain you (Dr. Shades) and anyone else who happens to be reading this thread and maybe someone who is sucked into the cult will finally give way and realize their past leaders were teaching unenlightened doctrine and were racist men who patterned themselves after the ways of the world. Hence the influence of Holy Ghost® of Mormon-yesterday was racist and didn't like dark skin! Elder Reynolds was a well known Church writer and the Secretary of the First Presidency for 39 years! Elder Reynolds was greatly involved with everything that happened in the top echelons of the Church including the polygamy case before the Supreme Court, George Reynolds v. United States.

Suffice it to say, his writings reflected the belief held by the General Authorities of the Church and his position on the curse of dark skin was the doctrine held by every Latter-day Saint, hence the entire Church, lock, stock, and barrel!

The Contributor, Mutual Improvement Association, George Reynolds, 1884 wrote:History of the Book of Mormon

They next sent missionaries to preach to the inhabitants of the land of Zarahemla and the regions stretching into the far distant north. They labored with great effect and abundant joy, and a universal peace, such as had never before been known since the division of the two races, extended over the whole land.

<snip>

But even before this blessed era the union had become so complete that it is recorded (A. C. 13), "that those Lamanites who united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites, and their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites, and their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites." It is also exceedingly consoling to know that the greater part of this race belonged to the Church of God, and even when complete apostasy darkened the annals of the Nephites, a few. Lamanites were still found who remained faithful and true under every change of fortune and in every variety of circumstance. Those who remained in unbelief fraternized with the robbers, and continued in the savageness of former generations.

<snip>

In the year A. C. 231, a great division occurred, and the people were again divided into two strong contending bodies, who assumed the old names of Nephites and Lamanites* But there was a great difference between those opposing races and those who had borne the same names in centuries past. The Nephites of this age were the true believers in Christ, while the new Lamanites, (whatever their pedigree) had not dwindled in unbelief, but had wilfully and knowingly rebelled against the truth, and their children, through the wickedness and abominations and false teachings of these fathers, diminshed in everything that was good— in knowledge, in handicraft, in civilization, and also in beauty; for now they were a white and lovely people, but soon the old skin of darkness — the fit companion of their filthy habits and mark of God's displeasure— came upon them.
The story of the Book of Mormon, Elder George Reynolds, 1888 wrote:The story of the Book of Mormon

The condition of the Lamanites was now pitiable ; they had cut themselves off from the presence of the Lord, the priesthood was withdrawn from them, the records and scriptures were beyond their grasp. Hatred and malice reigned supreme in their souls ; they had no inclination for the arts of peace; they were restless, cunning and idle, whilst they sought in the wilderness the food necessary to sustain life. Already the curse of God was falling upon them. Lest they should appear pleasant to Nephite eyes, their fair and beautiful skins grew dark and repulsive, their habits became loathsome and filthy, and this same skin of darkness came upon the children of all those who intermarried with them.

<snip>

Next year Ammonihah was destroyed. Less than four months had elapsed since the two inspired followers of the Lamb had left it to its fate, when the Lamanites fell upon it like a whirlwind in its suddenness, and as an avalanche in its utter desolation. The dark skinned warriors of Laman swept over these murderers of the saints like a tempest of fire, leaving neither young nor old, babe nor grandsire, to repeat the story of their woes. Not one of Ammonihah's boasting children was left to defy heaven.

<snip>

Onward swept the invading host; backward fled the defenders of the commonwealth, and backward they continued until every town and city, every tower and fort, from Melek to Moroni, from Manti to Bountiful, were filled with the savage, half-disciplined, dark-skinned warriors of Laman.

<snip>

In confirmation of the testimony of the Book of Mormon, that the inhabitants of this continent were once a white and beautiful people, it may be stated that when very ancient burial places in North and South America have been opened, the remains of two races — one dark and the other fair — have been exhumed.

<snip>

It was also the grand trunk road to the land of Nephi, and adown its banks poured the hosts of the dark skinned invaders when they forced their way into the land of Zarahemla.

And that is the testimony pertaining to the dark-skinned Lamanites and the curse that came upon them to include the GENETIC (Don Bradley) consequences of the mixing of seed between a light colored person and a dark colored person.

So, where is Don Bradley, now? Is he going to come here and defend the dead brethren? How hardly! Shame on you, Don. I don't believe you are working under the guise of transparency and honesty. I think you are a fake. Prove me wrong!

:twisted:

(gloves are off)
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Question for Don Bradley

Post by Shulem »

NOTICE

I don't want anyone here to think I'm trying to unfairly entrap Don who might dare to venture into my web. That's not necessarily the case. If that was my intent, I would have crafted posts that lift obscure quotes from material that nobody hardly knows about and incorporate them into posts that tempt a reply. An ignorant apologist might jump right in and accuse me of falsely representing the Church. But, I've shown a measure of kindness and consideration in making this thread and have not used the kind of deceit and deceptive tactics so often employed by apologists who tend to get angry at critics.

With that said, enter my web carefully lest I bite you and wrap you up as my latest victim.

"Beware," said the spider to the fly.

:twisted:
Post Reply