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???
I can’t defend Mormonism and I share your views on the religion. However, I believe he was correct in the historical context of those words in the era during which it was written. I don’t believe the Mormon church has been all that inclusive during it’s history, but it is a stretch to attribute it to these words that were commonly used in a different context back then. It’s the same as the word “gay”.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Mormonism without making the meanings of words a controversy to further an agenda that has little to do with contextual language study. Regardless, it is unlikely this controversy will decide the election. I believed the Mormon factor might decide the race in the South, but the Obama administration has been such a trainwreck that it should not matter now. 8 years ago might have been a different story.
Blacks will overwhelmingly vote for the rat candidate even if it were Margaret Sanger. That is another interesting topic for another day.
your post is nonsensical. it was written in the 1800s WITH THE ENGLISH IN USE AT THAT TIME. Now what are you trying to argue? I really don’t think you have a clue.