you are a fool and so are the rest of the illiterates that do not know the english language.
“white and delightsome”
one hundred years ago the word “white” was an adjective meaning unblemished or pure and also pertaining to goodness. It wasn’t just a color back then.
YI’m sure all those race hustlers and the MSM/Dem party care loads about 19th century English usage and definition. They’ll jump right out and clarify it for Mitt, I’m sure.
You're making yourself look quite bad...after I respond, I hope you won't just slink away and not respond...
First of all, the Book of Mormon reference is from 2 Nephi 30:6. Joseph Smith said these words "white and delightsome" -- were what he "translated" from the unheard language of "Reformed Egyptian" and that they were supposedly originally written by one of the "Nephi" Book of Mormon "prophets" between 559 and 545 B.C.
So, even from the Mormon point of view, who cares what the word "white" meant "100 years ago?"
The Book of Mormon was written 182 years ago -- and 2 Nephi 30:6 purports to be a direct "translation" supposedly written almost 2,600 years ago! Besides, re: the Mormon church changing the word -- It's not like the Mormon church has the supposed gold plates to go back and look to interpret a word differently! (Otherwise, they'd be making even more modern edits left & right, which they haven't been doing lately)
#2 Let's look at a similar phrase in the Book of Mormon, "white, and exceeding fair and delightsome" -- as found in 2 Nephi 5:21:
"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 exceeding 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." (2 Nephi 5:21)
We see quite clearly from exactly the same book -- 2 Nephi -- that the supposed "original" author tied together "white, and exceeding fair and delightsome" within the very same sentence as "did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."
Now, Mamelukesabre...are you now going to try to convince us that 2 Nephi 5:21 references something other than a "skin of blackness" -- and that it means some less-literal impurity or badness???
The Mormon church has only changed one Mormon "scriptural" verse on race since its 1978 "change."
No other of its racist verses have been altered or repudiated. They still stand "on the books" as "sacred" representations of the view of the Mormon gods. To review these rather disturbing Mormon "scriptures," click on these three links:
* Mormon Racism as doctrine, not merely folklore or tradition
* "Renounce and Repudiate": Will Republicans Hold Romney to Obama Standard?
* Pro-Rick Santorum pastor slams Mitt Romney’s religion [post #55 by Tennessee Nana...a post, btw, where TN challenges a Mormon about these verses -- but the Mormon doesn't respond]
Now that was unkind.
SURELY you did not INTEND to sound like a ARROGANT Mormon that assumes GENTILES have no clue how to GOOGLE® or did you?
http://www.mrm.org/white-and-delightsome
one hundred years ago the word “white” was an adjective meaning unblemished or pure and also pertaining to goodness. It wasn’t just a color back then
It is nice to see someone else understands this FACT about language in context with the era in which it was written. This is the kind of distortion/contortion I would expect from Sharpton and his crowd, but what you wrote is the absolute truth. I read classical literature and I am often amused at how impolite the politically correct and hypersensitive would find the words today.
I am not Mormon and won’t defend that faith. There are plenty of “strange” things about mormonism and there is no denying that their faith followed the cultural history of America in which Joseph Smith lived. Based on my own study, I believe many of the negative things attributed to Smith were probably true and the “tablets” were a fraud.
There is historical context (for those interested) for the attack on a candidates faith with the election for JFK Jr. where Catholicism was controversial - i.e. - some Americans suggested the Pope would run the White House. It seems strange today, but to many evangelicals in the 60’s the fears of Catholicism were comparable to the fears of Mormonism today.
Romney’s faith will probably cost him a point or two just as it did for JFK. I grew up in the Bible Belt and I am certain that many evangelicals won’t vote for a Mormon just like many would still not vote for a Catholic. I am in no way stating that those two faiths are the same, but the controversy is the same. While strange to some, it is that important to a few. However, I doubt it will be the deciding factor in an election where most people are deeply concerned about the economy, jobs, and the size/scope/debt of government.