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.
Mamelukesabre only offered a single context (100 years ago) -- which failed to address ANY of the three potentially realistic contexts.
In post #21, I offered three contexts -- according to how people interpret the Book of Mormon:
(a) The English language as of 1830...182 years ago (not 100)
(b) The supposed "Reformed Egyptian" source of 2,600 years ago...which can't be changed minus having the original "gold plates" to relook @ it...
(c) The BEST context we have -- which is how that same phrase is used within the same supposed author -- Nephi -- in the same book within the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi)
And in post #21, 2 Nephi 5:21 clearly shows that Mamelukesabre avoided the best "contextual" evidence there is...how that "author" (supposedly "Nephi") -- meant those words in similar contexts!
This same contextual interpretation is used by those who study the Bible...If you want to further know how a Biblical author used a word or phrase, take at look at how he also used it in other contexts.
You, Volunbeer, and mamelukesabre flunk basic hermeneutics.
This is the kind of stuff we see from MORMONism defenders ALL THE TIME.
You might have grown up there; but you somehow have managed to not get the message.
The 'controversy' is NOT the same.
Catholicism IS Christian, although it has a bunch of smells and bells to go along with it; while MORMONism is a HERESY from the get go.