User talk:Truthdisciple

Lamanite
Wikipedia isn't the place for interpretation or argumentation, but the place for simple description. The Book of Mormon was very literal and clear in its references to dark and light skin. It was a simple reflection of 1830s mentality in a country where slavery was still the law of the land in the South. Racism was quite commonplace even in the abolitionist North. The attitudes toward Indians reflected this as well. It was not until the latter part of the 20th century before the Mormon church started to modify this dark-skin/light-skin belief. But the BOM itself is clear in its literal meaning of dark and light skin. That is reflected here in Wikipedia. Modern interpretations are not appropriate--the BOM describes Lamanites as dark-skinned people opposed to the Nephites who were a light-skinned people. (Taivo (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was thinking that accuracy of information was important to Wikipedia. In publishing the simple description as you have, you're making the exact same mistake of misinterpretation to fit what you think to be true as the early LDS leaders beginning with Brigham Young did.  It would seem reasonable to go to experts on the subjects presented on Wikipedia or you, in reality, are contributing to continuing misinformation.  Accuracy matters.
 * --Truthdisciple (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)(Truthdisciple 23:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)),


 * You are mistaking accuracy with theological interpretation. The BOM clearly and literally states that the Lamanites were dark-skinned.  The BOM is the only source for the existence of such people and its description is all there is.  Anything else is secondary interpretation.  You can add a section about the interpretive history of the Lamanites, but the only source of information about them is the BOM and it says exactly what it says.  Until the middle of the 20th century, mainstream Mormonism believed the literal nature of the BOM concerning the Lamanites.  Wikipedia isn't the place to sugarcoat the plain statements in the BOM or to engage in interpretive fancy.  We simply report the facts here.  1) The BOM says that Lamanites were dark-skinned.  2) The early Mormons believed that literally.  3) Changes to the interpretation of the BOM passages are a phenomenon of the latter part of the 20th century.  Those are the facts as reported by Wikipedia.  The verses in Lamentations have nothing to do with the description of Lamanites.  It's all in the BOM.  (Taivo (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC))


 * I appreciate that you are willing to let me write a section on Interpretive History with only references within the BoM to show that it was not referring to skin color. Frankly I think the page could be written without referring to the color of their skin but you seem pretty determined to bring out the racism of the 1800's - 1900's.


 * I think the reason Joseph Smith changed the word "white" to "pure" back in 1840 was because he knew that it was open to misinterpretation. I referred to Lamantations because no one these days would say that people changed from gold to clay or from white to black. But there it is.  Job said "My skin is black upon me" in Job 30:30 etc.


 * Once again, thank you for the suggestion to write an interpretive history section. I will try to do an honest job.--Truthdisciple (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)(talk)
 * Actually, you cannot write a section with only references to the BOM. Wikipedia does not sanction original research based on primary sources.  You would need to describe what secondary sources say about it.  And it doesn't matter that you are offended by the racism of the 19th and early 20th centuries.  The BOM contains that racism.  The text might have been changed in 1840, but it was still being printed as late as the 1960s in editions of the BOM.  Wikipedia is not a missionary tract--it is simply a reporter of the facts.  And that racism was a fact.  (Taivo (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

This conversation should be conducted at Talk:Lamanite. Not here. (Taivo (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC))