Question for Don Bradley

[Shulem]

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...

Original Book of Mormon content is public domain and anyone could take verses from it and plaster them on a huge billboard (zoning laws permitted) in effort to slam the Mormons! I trust if KULT NEWS had the money, Mike would do it. Or pass out flyers on the public street!



Imagine that! Oh, I'm sure the Church would sue but they would lose. It's automatically protected by the First Amendment here in the United States. Imagine billboards propping up all over the country:

The Book of Mormon says:
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 Have Questions]

Deleted because I’m a muppet who cannot read

[bill4long]

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...

Original Book of Mormon content is public domain and anyone could take verses from it and plaster them on a huge billboard (zoning laws permitted) in effort to slam the Mormons! I trust if KULT NEWS had the money, Mike would do it. Or pass out flyers on the public street!



Imagine that! Oh, I'm sure the Church would sue but they would lose. It's automatically protected by the First Amendment here in the United States. Imagine billboards propping up all over the country:

The Book of Mormon says:
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.

That would be hilarious.

On another billboard nearby should be...

"God made her this way and thinks she is cursed."

[bill4long]

I trust if KULT NEWS had the money, Mike would do it. Or pass out flyers on the public street!

That would be funny, and the Church™ would deserve it. I would even kick in a few bucks for such a project. But having just watched a few of his "First Amendment Auditor" videos, I can't recommend his channel. He harrasses good people for just for YouTube clicks. He thinks it's perfectly okay to bother innocent bank personnel. Many years ago, I worked as a programmer for a company for years that produced banking software and I've worked with a lot of people in the banking world. Robbery is a real threat and the personnel are very nervous about unusual and weird activities for good reason. Mike even asked them where their bank vault was. They don't deserve that kind of jackassery.

[Shulem]

What is going on here? When was 2nd Nephi 5:21 changed to say “fair and delightsome”, is there a way to find out?

You're a little confused.

Here:

• 2 Nephi 5:21 rendered "fair and delightsome" in the original 1830 1st Edition of the Book of Mormon as well as in the 2nd Edition in 1837.

• 2 Nephi 30:6 in the 1830 & 1837 editions is "white and a delightsome" but was later changed to "pure and a delightsome" in the 1840 3rd Edition by Joseph Smith himself.

A later edition (1881) reverted 2 Nephi 30:6 back to the original "white" but the Church then changed it back again to "pure" in 1981. White and pure are pretty much the same thing in this particular case. For me, it's not a problem.

I hope that helps.

[I Have Questions]

What is going on here? When was 2nd Nephi 5:21 changed to say “fair and delightsome”, is there a way to find out?

You're a little confused.

Here:

• 2 Nephi 5:21 rendered "fair and delightsome" in the original 1830 1st Edition of the Book of Mormon as well as in the 2nd Edition in 1837.

• 2 Nephi 30:6 in the 1830 & 1837 editions is "white and a delightsome" but was later changed to "pure and a delightsome" in the 1840 3rd Edition by Joseph Smith himself.

A later edition (1881) reverted 2 Nephi 30:6 back to the original "white" but the Church then changed it back again to "pure" in 1981. White and pure are pretty much the same thing in this particular case. For me, it's not a problem.

I hope that helps.

I'm always a little confused

[Shulem]

I'm always a little confused

Me too.

[malkie]

You're a little confused.

Here:

• 2 Nephi 5:21 rendered "fair and delightsome" in the original 1830 1st Edition of the Book of Mormon as well as in the 2nd Edition in 1837.

• 2 Nephi 30:6 in the 1830 & 1837 editions is "white and a delightsome" but was later changed to "pure and a delightsome" in the 1840 3rd Edition by Joseph Smith himself.

A later edition (1881) reverted 2 Nephi 30:6 back to the original "white" but the Church then changed it back again to "pure" in 1981. White and pure are pretty much the same thing in this particular case. For me, it's not a problem.

I hope that helps.

I'm always a little confused

I wonder what the church was responding to when each of these changes was made. Trying to find the least offensive way of describing the relationship between good/evil and the visible marker? Or what.

And why stop there - it's not like this is the only such passage in the Mormon canon.

[Shulem]

• 2 Nephi 5:21 rendered "fair and delightsome" in the original 1830 1st Edition of the Book of Mormon as well as in the 2nd Edition in 1837.

• 2 Nephi 30:6 in the 1830 & 1837 editions is "white and a delightsome" but was later changed to "pure and a delightsome" in the 1840 3rd Edition by Joseph Smith himself.

A later edition (1881) reverted 2 Nephi 30:6 back to the original "white" but the Church then changed it back again to "pure" in 1981. White and pure are pretty much the same thing in this particular case. For me, it's not a problem.

I wonder what the church was responding to when each of these changes was made. Trying to find the least offensive way of describing the relationship between good/evil and the visible marker? Or what.

And why stop there - it's not like this is the only such passage in the Mormon canon.

In the case of 2 Nephi 30:6, Smith wasn't trying to erase or coverup the racism because the word "white" in that instance or context had nothing to do with skin color as it did in other verses throughout the Book of Mormon. So he wasn't trying to correct it in that way other than make this particular verse distinct from the other verses where racism was absolutely implied and white skin was a sign of blessing as opposed to dark skin being a sign of cursing. Look at 30:6 in context and garner the idea that Smith's change in this instance was no big deal but was only meant to clarify the difference:

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure [white/clean] and a delightsome people.

[I Have Questions]

I'm always a little confused

I wonder what the church was responding to when each of these changes was made. Trying to find the least offensive way of describing the relationship between good/evil and the visible marker? Or what.

And why stop there - it's not like this is the only such passage in the Mormon canon.

Perhaps it was the Church responding to President roulette (like the name Mormon being in and out of favour).