https://youtu.be/Mi3mJZjNz90

If PotUS is right, there is no religion that has scriptures that are more white supremacist than Mormonism.

BOOK of MORMON

1 Nephi 11:13 (Mary): “She was exceedingly fair and white.”

1 Nephi 13:15 (Gentiles): “They were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people [Nephites] before they were slain.”

2 Nephi 5:21: “A sore cursing … 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.”

2 Nephi 30:6 (prophecy to the Lamanites if they repented): “Scales of darkness shall begin to fall … they shall be a white and delightsome people” (“white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome” in 1981).

Jacob 3:5 (Lamanites cursed): “Whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins.”

Jacob 3:8-9: “Their skins will be whiter than yours … revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins.”

Alma 3:6: “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion.”

Alma 3:9: “Whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.”

Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed): “Set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed.”

Alma 23:18: “[Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them.”

3 Nephi 2:14-16: “Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites and … became exceedingly fair.”

3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples): “They were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness … nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof … and behold they were white, even as Jesus.”

Mormon 5:15 (prophecy about the Lamanites): “For this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us.”

Pearl of Great Price

Moses 7:8: “A blackness came upon all the children of Canaan.”

Moses 7:12: “Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were [i.e., except] the people of Canaan, to repent.”

Moses 7:22: “For the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them.”

What is the greatest terrorist threat to America?

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is the greatest terrorist threat to America?

It depends what you mean by "terrorist". The drug trade and organized crime are probably the most deadly things in America right now. Most fatal shootings are drug related and drug addicts themselves are responsible for a lot of break ins, violence etc. Another serious threat is the radical Green movement which feels very empowered now and smashes up restaurants, farms and stores.

At some point in the future, an element in the military etc may try and take over. It hasn't happened in the USA but it has happened in a lot of places elsewhere.

The top experts on homeland security would beg to differ:

“Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas told senators on Wednesday that the greatest domestic threat facing the United States came from what they both called “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists.”

“Specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race,” Mr. Garland told the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The cabinet secretaries’ comments reflected a dramatic shift in tone from the Trump administration, which deliberately downplayed the threat from white supremacists and similar groups, in part to elevate the profile of what former President Donald J. Trump described as violent threats from radical left-wing groups.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/us/politics/domestic-terror-white-supremacists.html

Yes, but they're being objective . . .

If your opinion is the experts on the subject are wrong, it’s probably closer to delusion.

Whoosh.

Wasatch Now Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It depends what you mean by "terrorist".

Uh, how about the dictionary definition? Why don't you use that?


-------------------
> The drug
> trade and organized crime are probably the most
> deadly things in America right now. Most fatal
> shootings are drug related and drug addicts
> themselves are responsible for a lot of break ins,
> violence etc.

But those forms of violence are not terrorism. You are merely trying to divert attention from white supremacists and their politically-driven violence, which is by definition terrorism.


----------------
> Another serious threat is the
> radical Green movement which feels very empowered
> now and smashes up restaurants, farms and stores.

The Green movement is terrorist? In a previous post, now deleted, you said people who write graffiti on walls are terrorists. Here you say that "smashing up" a restaurant is terrorism.

Do you expect us to believe that Banksy is a terrorist while people with weapons chanting "Jews will not replace us" and driving cars into crowds of protesters are not?


-----------------
> At some point in the future, an element in the
> military etc may try and take over. It hasn't
> happened in the USA but it has happened in a lot
> of places elsewhere.

Ah yes, another bright shiny object.

Your agreement with the white nationalist agenda is not as clear in this post as in the overtly pro-Nazi and pro-KKK one that was taken down, but you are still trying to apologize for terrorists with whom you identify.

Shameful.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2023 10:42PM by Lot's Wife.

I read this in the news over a week ago. Yes, that's what he said.

I've read the BoM 6 or 7 times cover to cover. Yes it is racist toward those with darker skin.

What connection are you trying to make that we don't already understand?

Are you saying that mormons that believe the BoM is true are white supremacists, and therefore a terrorist threat?

Or are you "just sayin".

I'm struggling to see what you are after with this post, other than just posting it because you can.

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read this in the news over a week ago. Yes,
> that's what he said.
>
> I've read the BoM 6 or 7 times cover to cover. Yes
> it is racist toward those with darker skin.

It’s not only ‘racist towards those with darker skin” MORmON scriptures are the most racist white supremacist myths ever to be canonized as ‘the Word of God’. Show me another scripture more racist than the ones in the OP.

You can’t because they don’t exist.

>
> What connection are you trying to make that we
> don't already understand?

White supremacy is a huge threat to democracy, as evidenced by 1/6 and before that, Charlottesville. What keeps white supremacy alive and well are the underlying racist myths that still persist, long after Genetic evidence has debunked them.

Why?

One BIG reason is that the 19th white supremacist myths used to dehumanize two entire races of people, in order to justify enslaving them and stealing their land from them, are still legitimized by the fact they are canonized as the word of God in Mormon scriptures. I think there should be a much greater stigma attached to maintaining bigoted, white supremacist, racist beliefs and Mormonism is Chief among them.

> Are you saying that mormons that believe the BoM
> is true are white supremacists,

Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on planet Earth, despite the fact it has been corrected 5,000 times, not one of those changes made it any less racist or white supremacist.

Why?

and therefore a
> terrorist threat?

Some of them, yes, like the Bundys, the Laffertys, and other Mormon terrorists who invaded the Capitol, inspired by the racist Book of Mormon.

> Or are you "just sayin".
>
> I'm struggling to see what you are after with this
> post, other than just posting it because you can.

My aim is to make calling yourself MORmON, more embarrassing than it already is, primarily because I have witnessed far too many times that, ‘Maintaining the good name of the church’ translated into otherwise good people lying to cover up and enable serious abuse and now they are being held accountable, thankfully, just not enough of them are, yet.

Racism is just one of many forms of abuse and dehumanization that are a result of Joseph’s Myth taken to an extreme.

    America was founded as a hot tub ... and only White People were allowed in the hot tub.  People who only counted as 3/5 of a White Person were not allowed in the hot tub, and even White Women could only enter the hot tub at specified times.

    JoJu and his ilk were total believers in America the White hot tub.  They pretended to believe that brown people (I'm not allowed to capitalize 'brown') could magically turn White, and were sad when they told brown people, "...not now, but repent and turn White, and then you can jump in!"

    While more and more people (think 'The Youth of America') are coming to grips with the notion that "All people really are Equal," there are still ever so many loud-mouthed bigots with smartphones willing and able to mouth off when it comes to their views on 'lesser races' and how America is just for White People, no others need apply!

    In 1956, 9.2 out of 10 White Folk would not want to live next door to a non-White family.  In 1968, it had dropped to 8.4 out of 10 White Folk...  In 1999 it was 7.2.  2015, 5.4; 2020, 5.0

    In 2022, which was the last time I made up a number, it was a stunning 3.6!

    But that 3.6 are LOUD, and they're mad!  They feel vastly threatened; they're like mad dogs, foaming at the mouth, and they have a savage need to strike out at what they see as a world gone mad!  They say, "Where in the bible does it say I have to share stuff with sub-humans?  Where is Hitler when we really need him?!!?

    So, I tend to agree with Biden when he quotes mormon doctrine!

    Although saying White Supremacy and the mormon church are the same thing is The Cat just being The Cat.  He seems totally committed to convincing all of us that we need to stop supporting mormonism and quite frankly, I feel myself tilting in that direction!

    
    

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JoJu and his ilk were total believers in
> America the White hot tub.  They pretended to
> believe that brown people (I'm not allowed to
> capitalize 'brown')

1. America the White hot tub. Clever, EOD, but terribly sad. (And similar in Canada although perhaps not as prominent depending where, and who, you are?).

2. > I'm not allowed to capitalize 'brown'

Also sad, Dog. And you made me look it up.

So, AP says no capitalization.

A random 'net search result states:

"Brown" has been used as a term in popular culture for some South Asian Americans, Middle Eastern Americans and Latino Americans either as a pejorative term or sometimes for self-identification, as with brown identity."


The Appalachian (2020):

https://theappalachianonline.com/editors-note-capitalizing-the-b-in-brown/

"In 2020, AP Stylebook recognized the capital B in Black when referring to race, ethnicity or culture; it continues instructing writers not to use the term “Brown” when referring to race, ethnicity or culture.

"Differently than AP, The Appalachian recognizes Brown as referring to race, ethnicity and culture."

"For some people, Brown does a better job of addressing the multiplicities of their identities. Additionally, many people who identify with dual-or more-heritage also identify with the term Brown. To avoid suppressing the identities of those who identify with or as Brown through our choice of adjectives, The Appalachian recognizes Brown as an identity and will capitalize Brown in reference to race, ethnicity or culture in articles moving forward."

"However, The Appalachian will continue not capitalizing the w in white. AP Stylebook posted another blog post July 20 explaining that “capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs,” and The Appalachian agrees. Furthermore, white is much less precise, compared with terms like Brown or Black, when referring to ethnic or cultural identities, and around the world there is far less consensus on who the term includes (or excludes)."


The above paragraph (among others) contains a fact I did not know: that the term 'white' is capitalized by white supremacists. Yow - I've been capitalizing it because that's how I've seen it done and because I thought we were doing so for all racial/ethnic terms now. The Atlantic (excerpt below) has chosen to capitalize 'white'.


The Atlantic (2020):

"According to the diversity committee of USA Today, which decided last week to capitalize the B-word, the change reflected “understanding and respect.”

"The style guide of the American Psychological Association declares, as it has for a generation: “Racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized. Therefore, use ‘Black’ and ‘White’ instead of ‘black’ and ‘white.’”


I realize there are details and history and preferences involved in the choices on terminology and capitalization. You have to pay attention in order to keep up, as with so much in life these days.

I will try to do what the accepted norms become. At this point, I (perhaps in my ignorance) don't necessarily agree with the AP and Appalachian reasoning that capitalizing 'White' "risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs" (white supremacy). Maybe so for a publication (?) but not for an individual unless they literally do mean for it to designate their supremacist views.


The Appalachian continues:

"Omissions and lack of inclusion can render people invisible.
Capitalizing the B in Brown more accurately represents the world The Appalachian is situated in, and seeks to avoid rendering invisible the identities of people who identify as Brown."


The Atlantic includes the following that the Seattle Times stated:

"Black (adj.): Belonging to people who are part of the African diaspora. Capitalize Black because it is a reflection of shared cultures and experiences (foods, languages, music, religious traditions, etc.) …

"white (adj.): Belonging to people with light-colored skin, especially those of European descent. Unlike Black, it is lowercase, as its use is a physical description of people whose backgrounds may spring from many different cultures."


The Atlantic:

What about Visconti’s [the chairman of the nonprofit DiversityInc] argument that white people don’t think of themselves as white people? If he were right—and he isn’t—we could still ask: Should it be that way? It’s true that white people have the luxury of not thinking of themselves as white when they’re in all-white settings; the less that’s the norm, the less they can think of race as something that only other people have—the way talk of “ethnic” food suggests that ethnicity is a property only “ethnics” have.


Atlantic: "Without the theory and practice of racism, there are neither blacks nor whites."


I was taught as a child that referring to skin colour was racist in itself. Now that the issues are more prominent I do think of it more, mostly so as not to give unintended offence by being clueless. I didn't used to identify, or think of, myself by my skin colour. Now I do, as the article says. The phrase "...the luxury of not thinking of themselves as white" got to me. Yes, it's a luxury indeed. Never been an issue. Especially here in B.C. where, as I've noted recently in another thread, only 1.2% of people are Black. The most prominent issues and discussions about racism here centre on the Indigenous Peoples who reside in Canada (for far longer than Whites have done). To my most profound sorrow it is present also within medical and policing settings, where you would think, and hope, that people would be safe and well cared for.


I found the article in The Atlantic to be interesting, informative, thought-provoking and uncomfortable. As a kid I had the general impression that at some point in life, as an adult, I would know "the way it is" about how things go. Only come to find out, everything keeps changing. It's a challenge. Interesting though.

Thanks EOD, for making me think. And educating me. An ever-ongoing project.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2023 03:49PM by Nightingale.

Last year at the American Council of the Blind (ACB) convention in Omaha, Nebraska, a resolution made its way to the floor. The question up for discussion? Should the first letter of the word braille always be capitalized when writing it in, you guessed it, braille. In the past, when writing the word braille in braille, the B was always capitalized. However, during the 1990s (if memory serves), the Braille Authority of North America, a committee of blind and sighted people that occasionally makes changes to the reading and writing code used by blind people, came to the conclusion that since the word braille was not capitalized when you wrote it in print, it should not be capitalized when you wrote it in braille, either. (The exceptions of course would be if braille was the first word in a sentence or if [and this has happened in the past] someone had the actual first or last name of Braille [such as the code's French inventor, Louis].)

The resolution to make braille a proper name gained a lot of support, but it also gained a lot of critics--enough that individual votes had to be counted on a separate day. Ultimately, those who thought that braille shouldn't be capitalized when writing it in the braille code (including yours truly) did win the day, though it was slowgoing as the votes were being tabulated.

Now I read from the above post that certain racial groups (whites, blacks, browns) are requesting that whenever you write the skin color of those racial groups in a sentence, that skin color should be treated as a proper noun. Forgive me for saying this, but I think this is a terrible idea on all sides. Arguments over specific policies should be won or lost on the merits of that policy and not the skin color of the individual making the argument. And capitalizing the first letter of the skin color of any individual will, I'm afraid, make people think more, and not less, in terms of racial identity.

> And capitalizing the first letter of
> the skin color of any individual will, I'm afraid,
> make people think more, and not less, in terms of
> racial identity.

Therein lines the problem. The people who want the capitalization do so because they choose to identify in those terms; they take pride in their ethnicities.

Isn't the question who "owns" people's identities? Should it not be the people themselves?

who had an ethnic group to belong to, i.e. status.

An adjective isn't an ethnic group.


There's also the endonym vs. endonym issue.


Who decides?


Some people don't mind the names other people call them while others do.

> Thanks EOD, for making me think.


If I did, I did it on accident ...

The biggest threat to the US is people buying into agitation propaganda. Divide and conquer is a thing.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The biggest threat to the US is people buying into
> agitation propaganda. Divide and conquer is a
> thing.

Unionism has practically vanished, but all kinds of radical identity movements (including white) and environmentalism have taken their place. Radical Islam never went away either, but gets less press than radical Christianity these days.

Oh grow up.

This is the heart of your argument:

". . . think of the constitutional ramification had the position of the Northern states and abolitionists prevailed. The three-fifths clause would have been omitted and possibly replaced with wording that stated 'other Persons' would not be counted for apportionment."

Do you realize how stupid that is? You are arguing that abolitionists and slaves should have been happy that the latter were granted any fraction of human status at all.

Your position is shameful.

I think you've misread the article. That paragraph wasn't the "heart of the argument". It was, in fact, the author's attempt to capture the mistaken argument of the group he's arguing against.

The article is saying that abolitionists were arguing for no representation based on non-free persons, which would diminish the power of the slave holding states. The author is arguing that the 3/5ths number wasn't about "human" status, but rather about reducing tax revenues and representation (i.e. political power) of the southern states, which would have increased as the number increased.

n/t



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2023 11:09PM by Lot's Wife.

I know someone who wears long sleeves and pants in the summer to avoid becoming dark and loathsome. Maybe they are onto something.

I'm going to assume that the President is getting the best advice from the FBI, Homeland Security, the NSA, the CIA, the military, and other security agencies. It says something that domestic terrorism is of higher concern than foreign terrorism.

He is. In fact, there were warnings about the threat of white supremacists in the military before Biden took office.

And I will admit to bias against white supremacists in the military; when I enlisted, I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign and domestic. White supremacists definitely count as a domestic threat, despite claims from scum like Tommy "I call white supremacists Americans" Tuberville.

It strikes me as ironic & sick that southerners wanted slaves (partially) counted for federal representation but the slaves had nearly 100% No participation in local matters.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2023 12:54PM by GNPE.

Today's wage slaves vote against their own interests.