Question for Don Bradley

[Shulem]

It also renders “Race And The Priesthood” as dishonest spin doctoring.

This:

Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today [December 6, 2013] as the official doctrine of the Church.

<snip>

Today [December 6, 2013], 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.

<snip>
___
The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical
content presented in this article; their work is used with permission.

The Essay drawn up by apologetic "scholars" (their work) underhandedly converts doctrines into theories in an effort to dismiss generations of Mormon doctrine because it would undermine the original authority in which they were given in the first place and safeguarded for generations until December 6, 2013 when the Church website under Thomas S. Monson's administration formerly declared that previous so-called theories maintained since the days of Brigham Young were false. President Monson throws former presidents that preceded him under the bus. Let's break it down:

Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple.

Subsequent Church presidents means ten (10) Church President that proceeded Monson to include:

Brigham Young
John Taylor
Wilford Woodruff
Lorenzo Snow
Joseph F. Smith
Heber J. Grant
George Albert Smith
David O. McKay
Joseph Fielding Smith
Harold B. Lee

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions.

Nobody cares what the "members" said! They don't count for anything! It's the prophets, apostles, and revelators that pronounce doctrine agreeable with the scriptures! All that matters is what Church leaders say, to include members of the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, Presiding Bishopric, and Seventy. THAT is the voice of the Church, more especially the First Presidency!

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

But the Church, under President Monson's management announced that former doctrine taught by preceding prophets would no longer be accepted and that such doctrine would be reclassified as "theories" of uninspired men, bereft of the influence of the Holy Ghost -- hence, they denied/lacked the Holy Ghost:

None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

But in their time and place, those explanations were accepted as official doctrine of the Church! The apologists today can choke on that and go to hell for their lying!

What about you, Don? Are you a liar too?

[I Have Questions]

So long as the Church refuses to remove the promotion of racism that is found in the Book of Mormon, no amount of spin or essays or apologetic nonsense or public pronouncements against racism will hold water. The only action that can, and must, be taken to show that the Church does not believe in racist notions, is to remove those racist ideas and teachings from the canon.

[Shulem]

So long as the Church refuses to remove the promotion of racism that is found in the Book of Mormon, no amount of spin or essays or apologetic nonsense or public pronouncements against racism will hold water. The only action that can, and must, be taken to show that the Church does not believe in racist notions, is to remove those racist ideas and teachings from the canon.

Starting with the Book of Abraham and the shameful Facsimiles:



Our evolving world will never accept Mormon racism as being the inspired will/word of God because the world is being enlightened and educated people understand that lily-white Mormons were prejudice of dark skin and thought themselves superior. The hateful explanation tendered in Smith's pseudepigraphal Book of Abraham chapter one is a prime example of doctrinal hate. Joseph Smith was guilty of racism and condemned all of the Egyptians and especially Pharaoh and "cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood" on account of "being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood." Don Bradley's descriptive explanation "genetic and geographical isolation" could well be applied to the racist priesthood ban against the Egyptians! The very idea of Egyptians being banned from God's priesthood is just as corrupt as the false chronology calculated by Joseph Smith in determining that Egypt was founded after the flood! Bradley's genetic isolation carried over from antediluvian times in which we learn in the Book of Moses "there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people" and white supremacy cursed that race who "were black, and had not place among them."

[Shulem]

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.

THIS: (from another thread)

I think he [YahooBot] was, in some ways, a decent guy, but when it came to defending his faith he was not above compromising on ethics and morals. The very definition of Mopologetics, in my book. In the end, I thought the good outweighed the bad, but he had a very refined sense of the boundaries between clever and hypocritical, ones I do not share.

The very definition of Mopologetics, in my book is they tend to be liars and cheaters. They coverup facts with lies and refuse to admit truths that discredit their misplaced faith. Because of that, I show no mercy when arguing with them. A recent declaration from a corrupt apologist (MG) on this board is absolutely disgusting, see here:

In Section 132 when we read “Verily thus saith the Lord” we might see it as a human framing of a real but limited encounter with God, not a guarantee that the entire section, in its every detail, is morally pristine.

And yet the pristine revelation of the entire section (every verse, 1-66) is directly from God; thus MG is a liar who twists, distorts, and perverts his religion in order to troll members of this board.

Listen to who speaks in every single verse and judge for yourself:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord...I, the Lord...

2 ...I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you...

4 For behold, I reveal unto you...

5 ...at my hands...

6 ...saith the Lord God.

7 And verily...

8 Behold, mine house...saith the Lord God...

9 Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord...

10 Or will I...

11 And will I...saith the Lord...

12 I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment...

13 ...by my word, saith the Lord...saith the Lord your God.

14 ...by me...

15 ...by my word...

16 Therefore...

17 ...abide my law...

18 And again, verily I say unto you...saith the Lord God.

19 And again, verily I say unto you...my law...

20 Then...

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you...

22 ...me...me.

23 ...me...me...I...

24 ...I am he...

25 ...me...my law.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you...saith the Lord God.

27 ...my...saith the Lord God...saith the Lord.

28 I am the Lord thy God...my...me...my...

29 ...by my word, saith the Lord...

30 ...my...

31 ...my Father...

32 ...my law...

33 ...my law...

34 God commanded...

35 ...I say unto you...I, the Lord, commanded it.

36 ...Thou shalt not kill.

37 ...my law...

38 ...my servants...me.

39 ...me...my...me...I...saith the Lord.

40 I am the Lord thy God, and I...my word.

41 ...I say unto you...I...

42 If...

43 And if...

44 And if...my...my...

45 For I...I...

46 And verily, verily, I say unto you...in my name and by my word, saith the Lord...

47 And again, verily I say...I...I...I, the Lord, am thy God.

48 And again, verily I say unto you...my word...my power, saith the Lord...

49 For I am the Lord thy God...I...my Father...

50 Behold, I...I...I...I...

51 Verily, I say unto you...I...I...I...I...saith the Lord...I...I...

52 And let mine...my...me...saith the Lord God.

53 For I am the Lord thy God...my voice; and I...I...

54 And I command...my...saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God...

55 ...I...

56 And again, verily I say...my...me; and I, the Lord thy God...

57 And again, I say...I am the Lord thy God...I...I...

58 Now...

59 ...my Father...mine own voice...me...I...my name...my law...my word...I...

60 ...my...I...I...saith the Lord your God.

61 And again...

62 And...

63 ...my commandment...my Father...my Father...

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you...my...saith the Lord your God...I...I ...my name...my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me...I, the Lord his God...my word...

66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.

Need I say more? MG is a liar because he knows Joseph Smith claimed the entire section was given in the Lord's own voice and not man's.

You're a liar, MG! If I was a faithful Mormon, I would not stand with you in a temple prayer circle. You do not deserve a temple recommend! You have the spirit of Satan.

[huckelberry]

Delete fragment posted in error

[huckelberry]

So long as the Church refuses to remove the promotion of racism that is found in the Book of Mormon, no amount of spin or essays or apologetic nonsense or public pronouncements against racism will hold water. The only action that can, and must, be taken to show that the Church does not believe in racist notions, is to remove those racist ideas and teachings from the canon.

If they removed the portions in the Book of Mormon would it not be said and thought that they were falsifying the book. People might view the change as dishonest. Same with the other scriptures teaching the ban. It's a tricky problem, glad it is not my business to solve it.

[Limnor]

So long as the Church refuses to remove the promotion of racism that is found in the Book of Mormon, no amount of spin or essays or apologetic nonsense or public pronouncements against racism will hold water. The only action that can, and must, be taken to show that the Church does not believe in racist notions, is to remove those racist ideas and teachings from the canon.

If they removed the portions in the Book of Mormon would it not be said and thought that they were falsifying the book. People might view the change as dishonest. Same with the other scriptures teaching the ban. It's a tricky problem, glad it is not my business to solve it.

The Brighamite Church could resolve some of these problems by going the Community of Christ route. Call it “inspired and meaningful” but not morally or historically inerrant or authoritative.

[malkie]

So long as the Church refuses to remove the promotion of racism that is found in the Book of Mormon, no amount of spin or essays or apologetic nonsense or public pronouncements against racism will hold water. The only action that can, and must, be taken to show that the Church does not believe in racist notions, is to remove those racist ideas and teachings from the canon.

If they removed the portions in the Book of Mormon would it not be said and thought that they were falsifying the book. People might view the change as dishonest. Same with the other scriptures teaching the ban. It's a tricky problem, glad it is not my business to solve it.

The church has already made significant changes to the scriptures.

The changes made to the revelations can be viewed at:

Changing the Revelations - Jerald & Sandra Tanner
The Tanners have done a considerable amount of well-documented research into the changes made to the D&C from the original Book of Commandments. They also list the numerous denials by church leaders that anything was changed and how the LDS Church condemns other churches for changing the Bible yet they have no problem changing their own scriptures. Please read their essay Changing the Revelations.

We have selected a few of the many changes to discuss in the following sections.

Significant changes to revelations

[bill4long]

If they removed the portions in the Book of Mormon would it not be said and thought that they were falsifying the book. People might view the change as dishonest. Same with the other scriptures teaching the ban. It's a tricky problem, glad it is not my business to solve it.

The Brighamite Church could resolve some of these problems by going the Community of Christ route. Call it “inspired and meaningful” but not morally or historically inerrant or authoritative.

I'm trying to think of a good contrast analogy why that would never really fly with the Brighamite leaders.
"Iceland" and "East Germany" come to mind.

[I Have Questions]

So long as the Church refuses to remove the promotion of racism that is found in the Book of Mormon, no amount of spin or essays or apologetic nonsense or public pronouncements against racism will hold water. The only action that can, and must, be taken to show that the Church does not believe in racist notions, is to remove those racist ideas and teachings from the canon.

If they removed the portions in the Book of Mormon would it not be said and thought that they were falsifying the book. People might view the change as dishonest. Same with the other scriptures teaching the ban. It's a tricky problem, glad it is not my business to solve it.

Just because it's tricky doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. The Church has not directly disavowed the racist content in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere. They've disavowed "past theories" etc but haven't explicitly disavowed the scriptural content. Listing the racist parts of the scripture and explaining that they are disavowed and why, would solve the problem without having to remove it. Because most people consume their scriptures electronically, it would be a simple thing to highlight the relevant verses and add a notation by them saying that the Church disavows them. But they won't. So they are culpable of distributing racism, and should have action taken against them for breaching hate speech laws. For instance, in the UK there is the following legislation

Publishing or Distributing Written Material (Section 19): A person is guilty of an offence if they publish or distribute written material (including books) that is threatening, abusive, or insulting, if they intend to stir up racial hatred, or if racial hatred is likely to be stirred up as a result.
Possession of Inflammatory Material (Section 23): It is also an offence to possess written material that is threatening, abusive, or insulting with a view to it being displayed, published, or distributed, if the intent is to stir up racial hatred or it is likely to do so.

It could be argued that distributing the content of the Book of Mormon breaches this legislation. It would be interesting to test it. Would the Church publishing the racist verses on Instagram, for example, be considered acceptable? And if not, what does that tell us...