Racisim in Scripture

[Suzie]

I am referring to 2 Nephi 5:21 and how that was taken literally for decades. We can't change its meaning now.

In order to understand that verse (along with many others in the BOM) I think we need to search a little Church history.

In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon the words "white and delightsome" were used yes but Joseph Smith carefully examined and corrected those words four years prior to his assassination (1840 edition of the BOM).

The problem is that after his death, other interpreters did not use this 1840 edition with the corrections Smith included as base for subsequent editions but instead used one prepared by the Twelve in England that used as a base the earlier copy.

So all statements made by leaders prior to 1981 with regards to those scriptures were based on that limited interpretation of what exactly "white and delightsome" meant. We are just humans and leaders are definitely not infallible.

[Timpman]

I have been studying! Here's 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 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."

Here's some footnotes:

"curse" - TG has many verses in which this word is used.

"delightsome" - Gen. 24:16 "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up." So this refers to APPEARANCE and virtue.

-1 Ne. 13:15 "I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain." This uses the term "white" when talking about APPEARANCE again.

-4 Ne. 1:10 ..."and became an exceedingly fair and delightsome people." I guess it just points to this verse because "delightsome" is included.

-Morm. 9:6 "That perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb..." In this verse "white" is in a list with "spotless," "pure," and "fair," so it seems to be used here as an internal attribute.

"enticing" - This is related to marriage.

"skin" - 2 Ne. 30:6 "and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people." I see that "scales" has a footnote refering to "Darkness, Spiritual" and "Spiritual Blindness." And then the verse talks about becoming "a pure and a delightsome people." So this verse is similar to 2 Nephi 5:21, which is why a footnote leads to it, but does that necessarily mean that "skin" means spiritual blindless? I don't think so. That simply doesn't make sense. These two verses are interesting to compare, but one does not define the other. So "pure and delightsome" used to read "white and delightsome." If "white" should always refer to "pure," then that word would have been changed in every verse that uses it. Apparently it was important to change it only in this verse, so in other verses they may not always have the same meaning.

-3 Ne. 2:14–16 This very clearly says that "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." It does not say that their spiritual darkness or blindness was remedied - it says their skin became white. Why use the word "skin" if it really has nothing to do with skin?

"blackness" - 2 Nephi 26:33 "he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free...." So you saying that pointing us to this verse means that "all are alike unto God." Yes, that's true. It says that God invites ALL to partake of his goodness, but that doesn't mean that the Lamanites could not have been given dark skin. Of course, they were still invited to partake of his goodness.

Moses 7:8 - "the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan..." Yes, this also refers to 2 Nephi 26:33 to remind us that all are invited to partake of his goodness, but it still says a blackness came upon them.

Footnotes are very helpful. They lead us to verses that relate, but do not necessarily define, the verse being read.

Finally, it is interesting that it says in 2 Nephi 5:21 that God CAUSED the "skin of blackness to come upon them." Would God cause people to be spiritually dark or blind? No, I think He did not cause them to be spiritual dark and blind (they brought that upon themselves, or it came as a result of their parent's unbelief), but He did cause them to have dark skin. Why use the word "skin" if it really doesn't refer to skin? I don't know why this happened to the Lamanites, but I can accept it.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Timpman

[Timpman]

Again, it would be nice if I were wrong. However, when taken in context and compared to other verses, it doesn't make sense that it's merely an idiom. Not everything in the scriptures is pleasant. Moses really did kill an Egyptian for hitting a Hebrew (Ex. 2:12) and God commanded Israel to destroy ALL of the Canaanites. God is infinitely wise and I'm not going to question that decision. We don't have to rationalize and twist words to explain the scriptures to people.

Also, this is certainly not the first time I have studied this. I taught black people on my mission and studied it quite a bit.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Timpman

[Suzie]

Why use the word "skin" if it really doesn't refer to skin?

Figure of speech. Just like the term you quoted "scales of darkness" is used in some of those verses without taking a literal connotation or even the term "dark veil" (interesting enough, all these terms refer to the covering of something...including the word "skin"). In fact, without trying to stretch the meaning, all these words/phrases within the proper context could be considered synonyms.

Take the example of Abish or even the Nephites and Lamanites spying each other. If the curse was really and literally "dark skin", these stories make no sense. Abish lived among the Lamanites without anyone knowing she was a convert of many years, how is that possible? Could it be that there was no physical change to her skin tone? The Nephites and Lamanites were able to spy each other without being detected, if their skin color was so different from each other how they did it? Because some of these spies (Nephites) lived among the Lamanites, they didn't merely pass through. These are just few examples.

[skippy740]

I am glad that you are studying this. I won't debate you regarding "idioms" versus literalness of certain words.

I suppose the most important thing (to me) is that IF you're going to assume a literal changing of skin color in The Book of Mormon... that skin color is not a curse today. That someone's skin color is not an indication of their worthiness in the sight of God.

We never discussed that particular application of the scriptures (as we were talking only about the particular verses), so I just wanted that part clear. I think we can agree on that. :)

[Timpman]

Yes, we definitely agree on that.

[Hala401]

Wow, you all get really intense! Please let me know how this comes out. :)

[skippy740]

I get kinda 'heated' on these topics. There are some people out there who continue to spout off everything they've heard without doing a bit of personal study. I'm not saying that happened here, but it does happen.

As part of the African American Outreach Program (a member-missionary proselyting program), I feel a personal duty to help others to learn and discover what is "hidden" in the scriptures.

As you can see, Timpman and I haven't seen "completely" eye-to-eye on the subject. But we have both been studying and quoting the scriptures... which is the desired end result.

Some people don't even know where to begin in studying this topic. I hope to give a little bit of information to help inspire other's personal study. Once personal study is taking place... my job is practically done. I let the spirit and the scriptures guide the other person from there.

[Hala401]

I'm to new as a member of the church to know the background in the Book of Mormon, but hopefully, I will learn more as time goes on, plan to learn more.

I have traveled a fair bit and personally see no reason to descriminate against another human being no matter what the issue is, and my stance has gotten me into a fair amount of trouble. AND, being a white American have experienced a little prejudjing by others. In Kenya, they assume that all Americans are rich. Many Muslims assume that an American Muslim Woman who does not speak Arabic is somehow not worthy. In Alaska, if you are not a Native, try to get a job. The list just goes on and on does it not?

[Timpman]

Take the example of Abish or even the Nephites and Lamanites spying each other. If the curse was really and literally "dark skin", these stories make no sense. Abish lived among the Lamanites without anyone knowing she was a convert of many years, how is that possible? Could it be that there was no physical change to her skin tone?

There is an indication that such a change takes time: "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people." 2 Nephi 30:6.

[Vort]

There is an indication that such a change takes time: "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people." 2 Nephi 30:6.

You may be interested to know that this phrase was originally "white and delightsome". In 1840, Joseph Smith changed this to "pure and delightsome" for the Nauvoo edition printing. Unfortunately, later editions of the Book of Mormon used editions previous to the Nauvoo edition, so this change made by the Prophet was all but lost until the 1981 printing, when it was restored.

If the Prophet Joseph Smith saw fit to emend his own translation, that suggests to me that "white and delightsome" did not adequately signal the change Joseph read in the golden plates. "Pure and delightsome" more clearly represented that change. In my mind, this argues quite forcefully against your racial interpretation.

[HEthePrimate]

I think people need to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff when reading the scriptures. The wheat is the message from God that readers can glean from reading the scriptures. The chaff includes things like the human personal failings and prejudices of the prophets who wrote the scriptures. Some former prophets may have had bigoted beliefs about different races, but that doesn't mean their message about Christ, atonement, etc. was any less true. I think it's safe to say that racist beliefs are wrong, but we can still accept and rejoice in all the good things to be found in the scriptures.

Edited April 3, 2012 by HEthePrimate

[Timpman]

You may be interested to know that this phrase was originally "white and delightsome". In 1840, Joseph Smith changed this to "pure and delightsome" for the Nauvoo edition printing. Unfortunately, later editions of the Book of Mormon used editions previous to the Nauvoo edition, so this change made by the Prophet was all but lost until the 1981 printing, when it was restored.

If the Prophet Joseph Smith saw fit to emend his own translation, that suggests to me that "white and delightsome" did not adequately signal the change Joseph read in the golden plates. "Pure and delightsome" more clearly represented that change. In my mind, this argues quite forcefully against your racial interpretation.

What are you trying to say here? In other verses in the Book of Mormon, it still says "white." Why wasn't it changed in those other verses? And if it very important at all, it would not have taken 140 years for it to be corrected. I am not trying to be "racial." I am only understanding what the book plainly says.

[Vort]

What are you trying to say here?

I thought what I wrote was self-expanatory. Which parts, exactly, are you have trouble understanding?

In other verses in the Book of Mormon, it still says "white." Why wasn't it changed in those other verses?

You might wish to ask Joseph Smith.

And if it very important at all, it would not have taken 140 years for it to be corrected.

Did you bother actually to read either what I wrote or what I linked to? It was not "corrected" 140 years later; it was changed in 1840. Which part of that did you fail to understand?

I am not trying to be "racial." I am only understanding what the book plainly says.

I think it's becoming quite apparent what you're doing. Understanding what the book actually says and what the prophets who wrote and translated it meant appears not to be very high on your hierarchy of importance.

Edited April 3, 2012 by pam

[Timpman]

I thought what I wrote was self-expanatory. Which parts, exactly, are you have trouble understanding?

I do understand that the change was made. It just doesn't mean a whole lot. It means that in one verse, "white" meant "pure." See below for more info.

You might wish to ask Joseph Smith.

I was not criticizing Joseph Smith. I was asking you to ponder why the other verses weren’t changed. See below for more info.

Did you bother actually to read either what I wrote or what I linked to? It was not "corrected" 140 years later; it was changed in 1840. Which part of that did you fail to understand?

Yes, Joseph Smith fixed it in 1840, but it didn't make it into the actually BoM printing until much later. If it were really important, it would have been included in previous printings. Yes, I did read the page you linked, and here is the "more info" I referred to above. It says:

“It is true that skin color is meant in some Book of Mormon passages, but this is not true throughout the text. Nephite wrote that the Lamanites received a darker skin to make them repulsive to the Nephites so they would not mingle with the Lamanites and partake of their iniquity. “Wherefore, 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 5:21). Later, we read that because of their repentance, “their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites” (3 Nephi 2:15).

“Two other passages may be using the term “white” to denote skin color. One is Nephi’s description of the gentiles who would come to the New world, who “were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain” (1 Nephi 13:15). The other is Nephi’s description of Christ’s mother as “exceedingly fair and white” (1 Nephi 11:13), a description that matches that of the fruit of the tree of life that Nephi and his father saw in vision, which was “white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen” (1 Nephi 8:11).”

It seems that some here believe that NO verses in the BoM refer to actual skin color. That doesn’t make sense.

I think it's becoming quite apparent what you're doing.

Please tell me what it is that you think I’m doing.

[Vort]

Yes, Joseph Smith fixed it in 1840, but it didn't make it into the actually BoM printing until much later. If it were really important, it would have been included in previous printings.

This is a false non sequitur.* That the post-martyrdom Church leadership did not have ready access to or otherwise failed to base future editions off of the Nauvoo edition does not imply or even suggest that the changes made therein were not "really important".

*Yes, there can be true non sequiturs. It's a logical fallacy, not a judgment of truthfulness.

It seems that some here believe that NO verses in the BoM refer to actual skin color. That doesn’t make sense.

No one has said any such thing. You are misrepresenting the position of others. Building a false representation so that you can tear it down is called a straw man fallacy.

Please tell me what it is that you think I’m doing.

Pretty sure I already did:

EDIT: Pam removed my other image. Huh. Wonder why? Was the 1890's lady too risque, shamelessly exposing her ankles?

[Just_A_Guy]

I've not been following this thread as closely as I ought. Is there a serious argument out there that the Book of Mormon does not describe a literal change in the skin color of the Lamanites? I mean, we can quibble over whether that was the curse per se or merely an indicator of the curse, but is anyone really asserting that the change just plain didn't happen?

Yes, Joseph Smith fixed it in 1840, but it didn't make it into the actually BoM printing until much later. If it were really important, it would have been included in previous printings.

It did make it into the BoM printing--the 1840 Nauvoo edition. However, in the early 1840s an edition was printed in Liverpool based on the 1837 Kirtland edition. With the move west, Britain became the center of LDS publishing for the next few decades and so subsequent LDS editions of the Book of Mormon followed the Liverpool edition's text (thus missing the 1840 revisions). Even after LDS publishing resumed in the US, out of sheer inertia the Liverpool text prevailed right up until 1981.

The Book of Mormon has had so many changes over the years--some of them apparently noteworthy, hundreds of them not--that I'm not convinced we can make broad statements about which changes were or weren't "important" based merely on whether/when they were made.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

I understand the facts... but I don't understand the practice being defined as doctrine.

I have not yet seen any revelation regarding blacks being unable to hold the priesthood.

If we're using these scriptures to justify the priesthood ban, and then their meanings were made clearer through revelation... then the scriptures didn't mean what people thought they meant.

Fwiw...I would never, ever, EVER quote Sterling McMurrin in an article about LDS doctrine, under any circumstances.

[Vort]

I just posted a response to Skippy's latest contribution, and it showed up here instead. What gives?

(Waiting to see where this one shows up...)

EDIT: Great. This one's showing up right after the last one.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Vort

[Vort]

I just posted a response to Skippy's latest contribution, and it showed up http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/45732-racisim-scripture-7.html#post662482. What gives?

(Waiting to see where this one shows up...)

[Timpman]

The original post asked about 2 Nephi 5:21 and other scriptures. skippy740 then linked us to Lesson Outline For Teachers | BlacksInTheScriptures.com, which says “the ‘skin’ being spoken of is spiritual and not a literal, physical skin color, which is consistent with everything we’ve covered thus far.” Also “All that made us believe that the Lamanites actually had a darker physical skin than the Nephites, now all have new footnoting or word changes to help us to understand that the passages are actually referring to spiritual darkness or spiritual blindness.”

skippy704 also indicated that it’s just an idiom. That “lesson” is simply incorrect, in my opinion, and I think I explained it well (footnotes don’t always define other verses – sometimes they are just related).

I came in saying that the Lamanites literally had their skin darkened and we can’t change that interpretation now. Vort came in with guns blazing:o. I wrote “It seems that some here believe that NO verses in the BoM refer to actual skin color. That doesn’t make sense.” And he replied “No one has said any such thing. You are misrepresenting the position of others. Building a false representation so that you can tear it down is called a straw man fallacy.”

Vort, by saying “No one has said any such thing," you have shown you have greatly misunderstood this whole topic because I was responding to the "lesson" linked by skippy740, which clearly teaches "that NO verses in the BoM refer to actual skin color."

So here is what my position is: Sometimes, "white" means "pure." But in some verses, "white" and "black" refer to actual skin color. It is what is it and we can't change the meaning of the scriptures now, as skippy740's "lesson" tries to do.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Timpman

[skippy740]

I just posted a response to Skippy's latest contribution, and it showed up here instead. What gives?

(Waiting to see where this one shows up...)

EDIT: Great. This one's showing up right after the last one.

It is odd... so I'll be posting this new response after your latest one.

We'll see what happens...

Statements By Leaders | BlacksInTheScriptures.com

Statements By Leaders

I have wondered why there is so much hatred in the world. We are involved in terrible wars with lives lost and many crippling wounds. Coming closer to home, there is so much of jealousy, pride, arrogance, and carping criticism; fathers who rise in anger over small, inconsequential things and make wives weep and children fear.

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

… Why do any of us have to be so mean and unkind to others? Why can’t all of us reach out in friendship to everyone about us? Why is there so much bitterness and animosity? It is not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Gordon B. Hinckley, April 1, 2006, General Conference Priesthood

“I make no claim of infallibility.”

Spencer W. Kimball, Improvement Era, June 1970, p. 93

“We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators.”

James E. Faust, Ensign, November 1989, p. 11

“The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility.”

George Q. Cannon Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, 1957, 1:206

“We respect and venerate” (the prophet), but “we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God.”

Elder Charles W. Penrose, Millennial Star, 54:191

“Even the President of the Church has not always spoken under the direction of the Holy Ghost.”

Elder J. Reuben Clark, quoted in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, p. 82

“…if He (God) should suffer him (Joseph Smith) to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray…it would be because they deserved it…”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4:297-298

“The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly, or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 6:100

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation…Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 14:205

“Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.”

Official Church web site The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

“The Lord uses imperfect people…He often allows their errors to stand uncorrected. He may have a purpose in doing so, such as to teach us that religious truth comes forth “line upon line, precept upon precept” in a process of sifting and winnowing similar to the one I know so well in science.”

Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, p. 47

“There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.”

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, June 2006, p. 16

“I teach the people correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, 10: 57-58

“We are all liable to error; are subject, more or less, to the errors incident to the human family. We would be pleased to get along without these errors, and many may think that a man in my standing ought to be perfect; no such thing.”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:212

“Sometimes traditions, customs, social practices, and personal preferences of individual Church members may, through repeated or common usage be misconstrued as Church procedures or policies. Occasionally, such traditions, customs and practices may even be regarded by some as eternal principles.”

Elder Ronald Poelman, 1984 General Conference

“Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said… that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, CES Conference, August 1978

“We set up assumptions, based on our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.”

Elder John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 127

“I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions.”

Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 331

[skippy740]

I just posted a response to Skippy's latest contribution, and it showed up here instead. What gives?

(Waiting to see where this one shows up...)

EDIT: Great. This one's showing up right after the last one.

I think the time on the new server isn't right... which may explain why these new posts are showing up at a time that was "earlier" than the later posts.

[Vort]

The original post asked about 2 Nephi 5:21 and other scriptures. skippy740 then linked us to Lesson Outline For Teachers | BlacksInTheScriptures.com, which says “the ‘skin’ being spoken of is spiritual and not a literal, physical skin color, which is consistent with everything we’ve covered thus far.” Also “All that made us believe that the Lamanites actually had a darker physical skin than the Nephites, now all have new footnoting or word changes to help us to understand that the passages are actually referring to spiritual darkness or spiritual blindness.”

skippy704 also indicated that it’s just an idiom. That “lesson” is simply incorrect, in my opinion, and I think I explained it well (footnotes don’t always define other verses – sometimes they are just related).

I came in saying that the Lamanites literally had their skin darkened and we can’t change that interpretation now.

I stand corrected. The lesson does indeed say exactly what you claim. My apologies for that part. Fwiw, I agree with you; the Book of Mormon most clearly and plainly teaches that darker skin coloration was a distinguishing feature of Lamanites from Nephites, at least early on. (I seriously doubt it was later on, and see no scriptural indication that, for instance, Mormon saw any division of people based on skin color.)

My argument with your interpretation is, I suppose, that you seem to think it's somehow regrettable or embarrassing or shameful or bad or yucky that the Book of Mormon teaches this. In that attitude, you could not be more wrong. That is the attitude to which I responded "guns blazing". As for the rest, you are right, and I apologize that I lost sight of that part of what you were saying.

Okay, after writing this, I have gone back to find out exactly why I interpreted you as I did. Here is the best I can come up with:

The "curse" was definitely black skin and we need to stop trying to explain it another way. That just mocks people's intelligence. Regardless of what our modern prophets say, we can't cover up the past. We need to address it head on. It is what it is.

and

It would be easier being a Mormon if I were wrong in this case, but it's so obvious that these verses are literal.

And in fairness, you edited out that last one not too long after posting it.

I interpreted the first quote as a dismissal of the present-day teachings of our prophets. In rereading it, I cannot see a convincing way of reading it that is much more charitable, but I do admit that it does not exactly say that the prophets are lying or covering things up. That is my own interpretation.

As for the second quote, it rubs me wrong because it suggests that being a "Mormon" is uncomfortable because of our primitive and racist (or at least superstitious) beliefs -- an attitude I deplore. But it does not actually say this; that might just be my own interpretation, too.

So I was wrong, Timpman. I shot from the hip, overreacted, and falsely accused you. I am very sorry. I have done exactly this in the past and have taken great pains not to repeat it, but obviously I failed this time. My sincere apologies.

[Timpman]

Haha, we wasted a lot of time. I really appreciate your apology. No hard feeling. What you pointed out in bold red does deserve some explanation, which I will provide later.