Open Hatch

“..those whose skins are not white and fair may detect the odor of racism in the quotation.”

Wouldn’t Mary, as a 0 century AD Jew in the region of Jerusalem, likely have a light complexion? But whatever her skin color may have been, and that aside, to suppose any observation of skin color of any person in itself necessarily negatively contrasts with others is absurd. If two people in a room have different skin colors, and someone points out that they have different skin colors, is that by itself racist? Does mere observation of differences between people constitute slander in itself? To say so has to outright invent a whole lot of bad context that doesn’t even exist in singular, harmless statements.

And regarding this:

“..Of course, Mormonism came of age during a very racist time in American history and it is reflected in the books that Mormon leaders concocted back then. The Old Testament has some very creepy stuff in it too, but let’s not start quoting chapter and verse.”

Why not quote chapter and verse? You have commented on the supposed racism which you yourself inject into a particular verse. This is the equivalent of Huckabee’s saying that he won’t say something but then saying it. And it isn’t said only about mormon scripture - but also a book that wider Christianity supports - the Bible.

Also, “concocted” is a statement of opinion given as fact. A person who believes Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon would not use the word “concocted”, they might say “translated” To say “concocted” is to say he made it up, pulled stuff together to form it, or made it from nothing. It would be more direct and open to say, assuming it is even relevant to a political discussion, to say something more direct like “By the way, Joseph Smith didn’t translate anything. He made it all up.” Frankly, the rather inderect yet plain use of the word “concocted” smacks of an attitude that assumes everyone thinks Joseph Smith made it up, or that this is the only rational, right, or reasonable point of view. I hope you would be aware that this implicit assumption casually overlooks a differing point of view which millions of people hold, which frankly smacks of a whole lot of disrespect. Implicitly asserting that something is “just so”, and against the religious views of others, is disrespectful of their right to hold that view. And that strong assumed bias is very ironic, considering these next statements:

“Romney himself benefits because of the sympathy he is now getting as the victim of bigotry, so supporters of Romney may be behind it (and perhaps not known to Romney himself).”

We would assume that someone asserting that others are a victim of bigotry or strong bias would make diligent effort to free their own points of view from disrespectful assumptions, or bigotry or strong bias. But even while bigotry is pointed out elsewhere it exists in the words of the one doing the pointing. Worse, it speculates that the source of the victimization is the victims themselves. Please draw up proof. Otherwise, drop the insulting speculation.