Question for Don Bradley

[Kishkumen]

Hey, Shulem. Very interesting. You know, Hugh Nibley used to say that he should never be held accountable for past writings because he was always learning new things and adjusting his views accordingly. I bet the same goes for Don. It certainly does for me. Writings are sediments left by past thoughts. We do the best we can to think through problems and write things based on those thoughts. I am not going to lie to you; Book of Mormon racism did not age well, and I would consider it a real pickle to try to make sense out of it now. Unfortunately, no one, for various reasons appropriate to different camps, would really be ready to listen anyway.

The Book of Mormon is without a doubt a racialist document that also veers into outright racism, and yet I would argue that the text was optimistically racist. That is not a defense of this racism so much as a description that I think works. Joseph Smith used the Book of Mormon to grapple with issues of race in a theological way. He obviously viewed white identity as normative and even ideal, but he did not think that whiteness guaranteed blessedness. He used the Book of Mormon to show that those who equated whiteness with blessedness could become the most intransigently wicked people of all, whereas those who were not white could exceed the white in righteousness.

In the Book of Mormon I see a person with outmoded views grappling with issues of his time in terms that were in many ways predictable for a person of his culture, background, and identity. At the same time he took native culture seriously in ways most other white people did not, and he saw the possibility that non-white natives, being Israelites in his view, could surpass white people in their righteousness, faithfulness, and blessedness.

It would be great if he had not baked in any of this stuff about race, but, alas he did. And it is tough for Mormons to navigate that problem in our day and age. But they have to, and I wish them the best. I see it as a real albatross.

[Shulem]

Hey, Shulem. Very interesting. ....

Thanks for that, Kish. Very well said.

[Shulem]

I see it as a real albatross.

May we shift gears? You must conclude the gospel topic church essay "Race and the Priesthood" is an insufficient offering and falls short in justifying how earlier saints (The entire Church) for generations believed in doctrine© (not "theories") that is diametrically opposed to what the entire Church teaches today. Hence, old Mormonism vs. new Mormonism! A house divided against itself!

Kish, do you care to elaborate on what you think of this meager Essay, especially the apologetic sentiments expressed below?

How about you, Don? Anything to add?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father. Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

<snip>

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

[Shulem]

The Book of Mormon is without a doubt a racialist document that also veers into outright racism, and yet I would argue that the text was optimistically racist.

Don Bradley in a recent video confession absolutely agrees with your sentiments that would also include the very organization (Church) led by God from 1830-1978!

The Church in the Book of Mormon, the Nephite Church, is there any sign that they were racist towards Lamanites, there's massive sign that they were... (laughs)

The Church is the Church whether in the Book of Mormon or that which Joseph Smith organized in New York State. It's God's Church and the racism manifested therein does not bode well for the Church in any dispensation or generation of time, moreover leading up to 1978 when "optimistically racist" President Kimball was forced/required to relent due to pressure from inside the church but more especially from outside, namely under US President Carter's progressive administration.

Modern Mormons sustain king Nephi as one of the most faithful and righteous prophets of the entire Book of Mormon and yet we see racism began under his ministration/administration and that successors (prophets) that followed and ran God's Church were just as racist. No wonder Bradley laughed because he knows something is rotten in Denmark Mormonism.

Isn't that right, Don?

[Shulem]

"Race and the Priesthood" is an insufficient offering and falls short in justifying how earlier saints (The entire Church) for generations believed in doctrine© (not "theories") that is diametrically opposed to what the entire Church teaches today.

Diametrically Opposed (Opposites):

• no — yes

• hot — cold

• hate — love

• "Today, the Church disavows" — In the past, the Church avowed

• "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn" — Church leaders in the past unequivocally commend

The Essay excuses ten (10) Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, men who held the keys of the kingdom, claimed direct revelation (not theories) through the Holy Ghost, and proclaimed explanations as doctrine (not policy) which today is overturned and rejected:

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories [revelation & doctrine] to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is [are] accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

1) Hence, old Mormonism vs. new Mormonism!

2) A house divided against itself!

3) Falls!

4) Mormons today are liars. All of them.

[Shulem]

First Presidency Message

Since the coming of the white man to the Americas, they have been driven mercilessly, killed, and degraded. When Columbus came, these descendants of the Book of Mormon peoples...

<snip>

And what should be the nature of our reunion? We are relatives. We are brothers and sisters under the skin.

<snip>

You non-Lamanites who, looking at these your brethren and sisters, can only see that which is “dark and loathsome,” take heed to yourselves!

Joseph apparently also had a special acquaintance with other great characters in the Book of Mormon drama. Those who heard him speak of these people testify that he could describe their physical attributes and personal qualities as though they were his most intimate associates.

The term Lamanite was first applied to the literal family of Laman, Lehi’s eldest son. This name very soon took on a broader application, however, when Laman, Lemuel, and some of the sons of Ishmael rebelled against and sought to kill Nephi, in whom the Lord had vested his authority. At that time the Lord cut them off from his presence and caused a darker skin coloring to come upon them. (See 2 Ne. 5:19–21.)

[Shulem]

I think it's obvious as shown earlier in this thread that church leaders including lily-white Mr. Kimball didn't find people of color to be very attractive and probably wasn't sexually attracted to women of color (or men for that matter) so he passed this prejudice down on others thinking it was the norm. Yet in his self-righteous racist attitude, he admonished the general membership consisting mostly of "non-Lamanites" to stop "LOOKING" at people of color as if they are simply dark and loathsome but to look beyond that and to "Look into your own past—any of our pasts—and you will find centuries of loathsomeness and unrighteousness!"

• Since the coming of the white man to the Americas ....

• We are brothers and sisters under the skin. ....

• You non-Lamanites who, looking at these your brethren and sisters, can only see that which is “dark and loathsome,” take heed to yourselves!

Thus, the moral of the story is: People of color (dark meat) are not very attractive in the eyes of lily-white Mormons!

[Shulem]

2 Nephi 5

The curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God (see 2 Nephi 5:20–24). The changing of the Lamanites’ skin was a mark or sign of the curse. The nature of this mark is not fully understood. The mark initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites.

Not fully understood? Something this simple is not fully understood?



How about partially (1/4, 1/3, 3/4) understood?



You wretched leaders and apologists of Mormonism™ are liars and deniers! Skin color in the Book of Mormon is differentiated in that which is:

• white = righteous (pure & white)

• dark = unrighteous (impure & dark)

Speak up, Don Bradley, or face my wrath. Final warning.

[I Have Questions]

The Book of Mormon is without a doubt a racialist document that also veers into outright racism, and yet I would argue that the text was optimistically racist.

Don Bradley in a recent video confession absolutely agrees with your sentiments that would also include the very organization (Church) led by God from 1830-1978!

The Church in the Book of Mormon, the Nephite Church, is there any sign that they were racist towards Lamanites, there's massive sign that they were... (laughs)

I like how Don tries to distance himself and the current SLC LDS Church from the racism in the Book of Mormon by inventing “the Nephite Church”. He’s clearly gaslighting himself, and attempting to gaslight others. But it’s also an admission that the Book of Mormon can portray things as being from God, but which were just man made policies based on their culture etc. so that thinking can, and should be applied to all of its claims, not just the ones Don finds are out of alignment with today’s culture. I find Don’s Mormon “scholarship” intellectually dishonest, but I guess it has to be. It’s more disappointing because we know he knows he’s better than that.

[Shulem]

I like how Don tries to distance himself and the current SLC LDS Church from the racism in the Book of Mormon by inventing “the Nephite Church”. He’s clearly gaslighting himself, and attempting to gaslight others. But it’s also an admission that the Book of Mormon can portray things as being from God, but which were just man made policies based on their culture etc. so that thinking can, and should be applied to all of its claims, not just the ones Don finds are out of alignment with today’s culture. I find Don’s Mormon “scholarship” intellectually dishonest, but I guess it has to be. It’s more disappointing because we know he knows he’s better than that.

It's a bit frustrating that he (a very likable person) has remained aloof and refuses to make an appearance seeing he's been a long time member of the board participating here since 2007 as _DonBradley and is a person of great interest for most readers here -- he is also a public figure and author. But he dodged the other thread and refused to answer a simple question posed by multiple posters and has avoided this thread like the plague.