Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

consiglieri

Racism In The L.D.S. Church

Recommended Posts

Hi,

We do know from the scriptures that in the last days the Lord will restore the tribes of Israel. That means the Lord will identify who will be in these tribes, or who should be in these tribes.

So, your wife is from one tribe and you are from another one... what's the problem? Are you going to be separated even if you married in the temple? Let's say you didn't marry in the temple in this life, is God going to have to marry you to someone of your same tribe in the next?

How can these tribes remain unique if they immediately go about intermarrying other with the other tribes and races?

But, why would you want them to "remain unique" at all? What happens if you don't?

Share this post


Link to post

Race is a trait we are born with (like having a blue eyes or blonde hair). It's not relevant, as far a person's character or personality and whether or not they will be compatible with someone who has a different skin tone.

Sorry Libs... I think you're naive if you see race as being a non-relevant issue. I tend to agree with much of what you say, but if two people of differing races are going to enter into a marriage, they'd be foolish not to consider beforehand the issue as relevant. Are they both sure they understand the added pressure no matter how good of character or personality they are... are they truly able to surmount the possible differences in culture and attitudes, and there are differences, including among families. I wouldn't be so cavalier to describe these as irrelevant... but more something to be acknowledged and considered as to their particular relationship no matter what ethnicities are involved.

GG

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry Libs... I think you're naive if you see race as being a non-relevant issue. I tend to agree with much of what you say, but if two people of differing races are going to enter into a marriage, they'd be foolish not to consider beforehand the issue as relevant. Are they both sure they understand the added pressure no matter how good of character or personality they are... are they truly able to surmount the possible differences in culture and attitudes, and there are differences, including among families. I wouldn't be so cavalier to describe these as irrelevant... but more something to be acknowledged and considered as to their particular relationship no matter what ethnicities are involved.

GG

Which takes us to the Church's statement on interracial marriages as a promoter of a certain societal form. Think about it, GG. If your (African-American) daughter was in loved with a white gentleman and he loved her back, would you discourage her to marry him because he was from another race? What would you think appropriate to say, GG?

Let's say you have 20 couples in front of you in the same situation as your daughter, don't you think it would be better to promote brotherly love amongst their families and respective cultures instead of saying you discourage them from marrying one another?

Share this post


Link to post
I have a number of concerns regarding this, among which are:

1. Why is the LDS Church still actively teaching its young men to avoid interracial marriages?

Practicality. It is a true statement - it is much easier to marry someone of your economic status, wealthiness, race, and culture. Not saying that it can't be successfully done otherwise - it just takes more dedication.

BTW, for the longest of time, most of my crushes were on people who were of a different race. Not so with this one, but the statement still stands, and I support what President Kimball, and the other prophets, have said =).

2. Why did the manual writers select this quote for inclusion in the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3?

The advice is good. I think it was also in the previous Aaronic Priesthood Manual as well. Don't take it as an insult, it is sound advice =).

3. Why was the original quote edited in such a way as to indicate it has ongoing application? (Not only is the first sentence entirely absent, the first clause of the second sentence has been removed with no indication of the deletion.)

Because the prophets still view it as such. Same with the apostles, and this statement, as said, is good advice.

4. Why haven't we completely left all this in the past where it belongs?

It doesn't belong in the past. Practicality never does. At least not until the problem is fully blown over, that is ;-).

A good example... eating with someone who's family served seafood every night would be really difficult for me =D. I'd do it, because I'd love her and them (her family), but it'd probably create more tension, no? Mairrage would be possible, but tons more difficult =).

The prophet's statement still has some application =).

Best Wishes,

TAO =)

Oh... I also know many (probably 4 or 5) mixed race marriages in my ward, and the wards surrounding. They do a good job of showing that it can, and often will, be successful. And they also show the dedication that is needed between a wife/husband and his or her spouse if it is to be successful =). It can be done.

Share this post


Link to post

So, your wife is from one tribe and you are from another one... what's the problem? Are you going to be separated even if you married in the temple? Let's say you didn't marry in the temple in this life, is God going to have to marry you to someone of your same tribe in the next?

...

The laws of Israel were/are very patriarchal. So if a woman marries a man in another tribe, AND THE LORD ACCEPTS THAT MARRIAGE, then she becomes part of the tribe of her husband.

But, why would you want them to "remain unique" at all? What happens if you don't?

I believe that God has spirits to send into this world, and each of those spirits must come only through a certain lineage.

Just like mankind carefully breed dogs and cattle and other animals to keep thoroughbred lines and for other purposes, God is the one who has an interest in controlling the breeding going on among humans. It is His issue to keep diversity among us. You want to fight Him on it?

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
1. Why is the LDS Church still actively teaching its young men to avoid interracial marriages?

2. Why did the manual writers select this quote for inclusion in the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3?

3. Why was the original quote edited in such a way as to indicate it has ongoing application? (Not only is the first sentence entirely absent, the first clause of the second sentence has been removed with no indication of the deletion.)

4. Why haven't we completely left all this in the past where it belongs?

This has nothing to do with the priesthood ban, as you pointed out, if the quote was before the 1978 revelation and under the context of temple marriage, then surely they meant out the MANY OTHER interracial combinations that were all capable of getting a temple marriage, considering the context was Temple divorce.

I believe the over-arching subject for the book and the quote was about divorce (what its doing in an Aaronic priesthood manual, I don't know), its advice is due to the results of a survey for the sake of preventing divorce. While it goes on about how glad they were that temple divorces were low according to the survey. He advises, under the impression that marriages between different religions, races, social backgrounds, and education levels are issues that statistically contribute to a divorce at some point in their marriages, that people should try to have more in-common within the marriages "generally" (not universally).

I can only say whether it is good or bad advice for avoiding divorce by whether it is true, via; whether is true across most cultures or countries (or at least among most membership which is more and more global), or has held true (that times hasn't changed the statistic much).

I don't know if this qualifies as racist, especially considering its seems to be only based on survey statistics.

Share this post


Link to post

This has nothing to do with the priesthood ban, as you pointed out, the quote was before the 1978 revelation and under the context of temple marriage. Well, then surely they meant out the many OTHER interracial combinations capable of temple marriage, considering the context was keeping Temple divorce low.

I believe the over-arching subject for the book and the quote was about divorce (what its doing in an Aaronic priesthood manual, I don't know), its advice is due to the results of a survey for the sake of preventing divorce. While it goes on about how glad they were that temple divorces were low according to the survey. He advises, under the impression that marriages between different religions, races, social backgrounds, and education levels are issues that statistically contribute to a divorce at some point in their marriages, that people should try to have more in-common within the marriages "generally" (not universally).

I can only say whether it is good or bad advice for avoiding divorce by whether it is true, via; whether is true across most cultures or countries (or at least among most membership which is more and more global), or has held true (that times hasn't changed the statistic much).

I don't know if this qualifies as racist, especially considering its seems to be only based on survey statistics.

Here's the thing, Ray. You can have everything in common with your future wife of another race (i.e. same economic status, same religion, etc) and you would STILL be discouraged from marrying her because she is from another race. To say that people should look to marry people who they find to have similar interests and communicate well with them is one thing. To say that people should avoid marrying people from other races is another one.

Think about it this way: what is the best approach to lower the incidence of drunk driving? Is it to discourage people from driving? If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post

The laws of Israel were/are very patriarchal.

....and? How is this relevant to my question?

So if a woman marries a man in another tribe, AND THE LORD ACCEPTS THAT MARRIAGE, then she becomes part of the tribe of her husband.

OK, so then the "different tribes" argument you gave can't be used against interracial marriages since it doesn't matter how different the tribes are, if they marry then they become of the same tribe and there's no problem.

I believe that God has spirits to send into this world, and each of those spirits must come only through a certain lineage.

Irrelevant.

Just like mankind carefully breed dogs and cattle and other animals to keep thoroughbred lines and for other purposes, God is the one who has an interest in controlling the breeding going on among humans. It is His issue to keep diversity among us. You want to fight Him on it?

For now, I'm only fighting you since you have shown your argument to be nonsense.

Let me repeat, since the woman will become of the same tribe as the man when they marry (as YOU said here) then inter-tribal marriages are not a problem... but you said before that they were. Falsified.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a number of concerns regarding this, among which are:

1. Why is the LDS Church still actively teaching its young men to avoid interracial marriages?

I suspect it's because the leaders (and manual writers) of the Church do, honestly, believe that couples should consider those factors before getting married. Or at least they did in 1992.

A tangential question would be to consider what kind of advice would be appropriate for a lesson to teenage boys about selecting a woman to marry. Are any of those factors relevant? If not, what advice should be given?

2. Why did the manual writers select this quote for inclusion in the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3?

I suspect it's because the leaders (and manual writers) of the Church do, honestly, believe that couples should consider those factors before getting married. Or at least they did in 1992.

3. Why was the original quote edited in such a way as to indicate it has ongoing application? (Not only is the first sentence entirely absent, the first clause of the second sentence has been removed with no indication of the deletion.)

I suspect that the "90%" statistic was outdated at the time of the manual publication (if it were ever accurate to begin with), and its omission required the change to the second sentence.

4. Why haven't we completely left all this in the past where it belongs?

I don't know how often Priesthood manuals are updated, but it will be interesting to see if it stays in the next one.

As a side note, you don't have to dig through an old Priesthood manual to find evidence of racist attitudes in the Church. In 2006 President Hinckley came right out and said we still have a problem:

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.

The Need For Greater Kindness

Share this post


Link to post
Here's the thing, Ray. You can have everything in common with your future wife of another race (i.e. same economic status, same religion, etc) and you would STILL be discouraged from marrying her because she is from another race.

That is not the "thing". If it becomes a factor in some divorces, and its the same for these other differences, I don't know that its unethical to mention them. If it is unethical to discourage marriage on the basis of race no matter what the reason, then it should be equally unethical to bring mention culture, class and creeds that are also mentioned. Rather than being racist, it must be the over-arching idea behind it that has nothing to do with race that may or may not be ethical.

To say that people should look to marry people who they find to have similar interests and communicate well with them is one thing. To say that people should avoid marrying people from other races is another one.
Is it not the same discussion? Does race not have any impact on a person's life and have any effect on how people relate to each other or communicate? The matter seems to not be about whether it SHOULD be a factor but whether it in fact IS a factor, considering its apparently statistically backed.
Think about it this way: what is the best approach to lower the incidence of drunk driving? Is it to discourage people from driving? If not, why not?

Well, dealing with statistics, reducing the amount of drivers wouldn't effect the ratio of drunk driving incidences. I'm not sure I'm following.

Share this post


Link to post

Which takes us to the Church's statement on interracial marriages as a promoter of a certain societal form. Think about it, GG. If your (African-American) daughter was in loved with a white gentleman and he loved her back, would you discourage her to marry him because he was from another race? What would you think appropriate to say, GG?

I wouldn't "discourage" her per se, but I'd want both my daughter and her fiance to be realistic and at least consider some of the difficulties that might arise, particularly in relation to different cultures, and make sure these would not be an issue for them in their relationship to each other and to their families. I state again, it is foolhardy not to consider these beforehand. If you think there aren't cultural or familial differences that could impact a couple, then you aren't being realistic.

I have a family member who is in a mixed marriage and very happy... but they went in with realistic expectations and attitudes.

GG

Share this post


Link to post

I posted this:

"We are grateful that this one survey reveals that about 90 percent of the temple marriages hold fast."

This is surely no longer true today, if it ever was. Mormon temple divorces in Utah at least are c. equal to the general divorce rate.

I have no idea why the modern Church would continue to teach this, other than an effort to correct the appalling divorce rate in temple marriages. If so, it seems to me a counterproductive approach; since the world at large is blending cultures and so-called races more and more....

QB is quite ignorant, but in the event he is not, I'm willing to concede the point . . .

assuming QB can produce a source that supports his assertion.

And, yes, this means this is an official, Board Rules Certifiable, CFR.

I am the source. I live in SLC. Granted, not all of it at the same time. I've seen temple divorces go from almost nil to about half of the marriages I know of. Not original marriages, mind, but c. half of total marriages, including previous or subsequent temple marriages. A factoid I have believed for many years is that c. 25% of original marriages fail (nationwide); if you are divorced and remarry you have roughly 50/50 in your second marriage; and if you've divorced more than once, any subsequent marriages have a c. 80% chance of failing. I don't remember where I heard that or if it's still "true" or not. And I have no way of checking Mormon temple marriages beyond the first stage, i.e. I do not keep tabs on all the people I have known who had failed temple marriages....

Share this post


Link to post

I posted this:

This is surely no longer true today, if it ever was. Mormon temple divorces in Utah at least are c. equal to the general divorce rate.

I have no idea why the modern Church would continue to teach this, other than an effort to correct the appalling divorce rate in temple marriages. If so, it seems to me a counterproductive approach; since the world at large is blending cultures and so-called races more and more....

I am the source. I live in SLC. Granted, not all of it at the same time. I've seen temple divorces go from almost nil to about half of the marriages I know of. Not original marriages, mind, but c. half of total marriages, including previous or subsequent temple marriages. A factoid I have believed for many years is that c. 25% of original marriages fail (nationwide); if you are divorced and remarry you have roughly 50/50 in your second marriage; and if you've divorced more than once, any subsequent marriages have a c. 80% chance of failing. I don't remember where I heard that or if it's still "true" or not. And I have no way of checking Mormon temple marriages beyond the first stage, i.e. I do not keep tabs on all the people I have known who had failed temple marriages....

fac·toid

noun \ˈfak-ˌtȯid\

Definition of FACTOID

1: an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print2: a briefly stated and usually trivial factexternal.jpg See factoid defined for English-language learners »See factoid defined for kids »

Examples of FACTOID

  • The book is really just a collection of interesting factoids.

First Known Use of FACTOID

1973

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't "discourage" her per se, but I'd want both my daughter and her fiance to be realistic and at least consider some of the difficulties that might arise, particularly in relation to different cultures, and make sure these would not be an issue for them in their relationship to each other and to their families.

GG, no one is against this. This is the most sensible thing in the world but we are talking about discouraging your daughter from marrying the white gentleman because he's white and she is black.

I state again, it is foolhardy not to consider these beforehand. If you think there aren't cultural or familial differences that could impact a couple, then you aren't being realistic.

I have a family member who is in a mixed marriage and very happy... but they went in with realistic expectations and attitudes.

GG

Again, I don't think anyone can seriously be against this but that's not what we are talking about here, GG. We are talking about really discouraging your daughter from marrying someone she loves just because he's white. Not about considering future problems. Not about considering family pressures. What's worst, we aren't even considering how to overcome all of these problems if they exists in her particular case (which I think would be the best option) but about truly discouraging your daughter from marrying someone she loves just because he is of another race. Do you see the difference here?

Share this post


Link to post

From the eight that lived through the flood all races came into existence. So from the beginning the races were made by the design of man and woman. Why God did this is not clear. I suspect it is a stumbling block for many. Man tends to hate anything he can find different so he can raise himself up. So if these races did come into being because of some plan should we actively set out to mix things up? Rather than use our own logic to answer this question I think the more sure word of the prophet should be used as our rule. Even here we may not receive an answer to why but just the rule. I have to leave it to faith like most things. But I do want to add that Christ died for all, no matter what color. We are to love our fellow man no matter what color.

Share this post


Link to post

I suspect it's because the leaders (and manual writers) of the Church do, honestly, believe that couples should consider those factors before getting married. Or at least they did in 1992.

A tangential question would be to consider what kind of advice would be appropriate for a lesson to teenage boys about selecting a woman to marry. Are any of those factors relevant? If not, what advice should be given?

I suspect it's because the leaders (and manual writers) of the Church do, honestly, believe that couples should consider those factors before getting married. Or at least they did in 1992.

I suspect that the "90%" statistic was outdated at the time of the manual publication (if it were ever accurate to begin with), and its omission required the change to the second sentence.

I don't know how often Priesthood manuals are updated, but it will be interesting to see if it stays in the next one.

As a side note, you don't have to dig through an old Priesthood manual to find evidence of racist attitudes in the Church. In 2006 President Hinckley came right out and said we still have a problem:

R

acial 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.

The Need For Greater Kindness

Thanks for posting this, cinepro...I had forgotten about this statement. This was just one of the reasons I loved Gordon B. Hinckley. I remember when he said this, and I was so happy that he did, because I had been attending some Genesis Firesides, where there was some sadness about lingering racism in the church (noted by many new, black/African-American members). It sure wasn't keeping them out of the church, though. Many were embracing the Gospel with open arms.

Gordon B. Hinckley was very perceptive and sensitive to these issues. Wonderful man.

Share this post


Link to post
'78 had said, regarding QB's assertion that Temple Marriages match more or less exactly the divorce rates generally: "QB is quite ignorant, but in the event he is not, I'm willing to concede the point . . .

assuming QB can produce a source that supports his assertion.

And, yes, this means this is an official, Board Rules Certifiable, CFR."

I am the source. I live in SLC. Granted, not all of it at the same time. I've seen temple divorces go from almost nil to about half of the marriages I know of. Not original marriages, mind, but c. half of total marriages, including previous or subsequent temple marriages. A factoid I have believed for many years is that c. 25% of original marriages fail (nationwide); if you are divorced and remarry you have roughly 50/50 in your second marriage; and if you've divorced more than once, any subsequent marriages have a c. 80% chance of failing. I don't remember where I heard that or if it's still "true" or not. And I have no way of checking Mormon temple marriages beyond the first stage, i.e. I do not keep tabs on all the people I have known who had failed temple marriages....

That's your response to a CFR? You're the source?

Why not just admit it's your unstudied, unsupportable, unreasoned, bigoted, opinion and leave it at that?

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the thing, Ray. You can have everything in common with your future wife of another race (i.e. same economic status, same religion, etc) and you would STILL be discouraged from marrying her because she is from another race.

Please reread the statement in the priesthood booklet, and know it's supposed to be taken with a grain of salt.

To say that people should look to marry people who they find to have similar interests and communicate well with them is one thing. To say that people should avoid marrying people from other races is another one.

Culture my friend. Culture is something to be very careful about.

And yes, race is often a piece of culture.

Humble Wishes,

TAO

Share this post


Link to post

From the eight that lived through the flood all races came into existence. So from the beginning the races were made by the design of man and woman. Why God did this is not clear. I suspect it is a stumbling block for many. Man tends to hate anything he can find different so he can raise himself up. So if these races did come into being because of some plan should we actively set out to mix things up? Rather than use our own logic to answer this question I think the more sure word of the prophet should be used as our rule. Even here we may not receive an answer to why but just the rule. I have to leave it to faith like most things. But I do want to add that Christ died for all, no matter what color. We are to love our fellow man no matter what color.

You had me at "From the eight that lived through the flood..." Franktalk. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post

QB is quite ignorant, but in the event he is not, I'm willing to concede the point . . .

assuming QB can produce a source that supports his assertion.

And, yes, this means this is an official, Board Rules Certifiable, CFR.

Brigham Young University professor Daniel K. Judd computed in the year 2000 that only 6% of those Mormons who marry in a temple ceremony subsequently go through a temple divorce. This is a small fraction of the rate in the general American population. 3 Unfortunately, the value may not be accurate:

- Most Mormons who have their marriage sealed in a temple ceremony and who subsequently divorce do so in a civil ceremony. This avoids the rather complex temple "cancellation of sealing" (divorce) procedures. Thus, their divorce is not counted in the above figure.

- Some Mormons marry in a temple ceremony, divorce in a civil procedure and subsequently remarry in a second temple ceremony. This would count as two temple marriages and zero temple divorces -- thus reducing the apparent divorce rate.

Overall, the Mormon divorce rate appears to be no different from the average American divorce rate. A 1999 study by Barna Research of nearly 4,000 U.S. adults showed that 24% of Mormon marriages end in divorce -- a number statistically equal to the divorce rate among all Americans. 5 Members of non-denominational churches (typically Fundamentalist in teaching) and born-again Christians experience a significantly higher divorce rate; Agnostics and Atheists have much a lower rate.

This data is supported by an earlier study the National Survey of Families and Households. It found that about 26% of both Mormons and non-Mormons had experienced at least one divorce at some time during their life.

This simple statistic obscures an interesting factor: Mormons who marry fellow believers have an extremely low divorce rate:

"A 1993 study published in Demography [magazine] showed that Mormons marrying within their church are least likely of all Americans to become divorced. Only 13 percent of LDS couples have divorced after five years of marriage, compared with 20 percent for religiously homogamist unions among Catholics and Protestants and 27 percent among Jews. However, when a Mormon marries outside his or her denomination, the divorce rate soars to 40 percent -- second only to mixed-faith marriages involving a Jewish spouse (42 percent)." 7

One might speculate that the religious and cultural differences between Mormons and non-Mormons (and between Jews and non-Jews) is often so great that the chances of a successful, harmonious marriage are much reduced.

Divorce and the LDS Church

Share this post


Link to post

I ran across this series of articles in the NY Times, while I was reading the news this evening. Serendipitous. :)

I thought it might fit in with the discussion here.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/us/series/race_remixed/index.html?ref=us

Excerpt from "Black? White? Asian? More Young Americans Choose All of the Above"

The crop of students moving through college right now includes the largest group of mixed-race people ever to come of age in the United States, and they are only the vanguard: the country is in the midst of a demographic shift driven by immigration and intermarriage.

One in seven new marriages is between spouses of different races or ethnicities, according to data from 2008 and 2009 that was analyzed by the Pew Research Center. Multiracial and multiethnic Americans (usually grouped together as “mixed race”) are one of the country’s fastest-growing demographic groups. And experts expect the racial results of the 2010 census, which will start to be released next month, to show the trend continuing or accelerating.

Share this post


Link to post

GG, no one is against this. This is the most sensible thing in the world but we are talking about discouraging your daughter from marrying the white gentleman because he's white and she is black. Again, I don't think anyone can seriously be against this but that's not what we are talking about here, GG. We are talking about really discouraging your daughter from marrying someone she loves just because he's white. Not about considering future problems. Not about considering family pressures. What's worst, we aren't even considering how to overcome all of these problems if they exists in her particular case (which I think would be the best option) but about truly discouraging your daughter from marrying someone she loves just because he is of another race. Do you see the difference here?

No one was talking about "really discouraging" or "truly discouraging" my hypothetical daughter from marrying someone of a different race... not even close...

Don't you see the difference?

GG

Share this post


Link to post

I hate when people make the mythical claim of a 50/50 divorce rate. It has never been that high and I grow tired of it being repeated.

http://www.nytimes.c...lth/19divo.html

This is one of the older articles and I have had conversations with several socialogists who have agreed. The myth comes from agencies looking at the number of marriages and number of divorces in the same year. They have never traced actual marriages to divorces, mostly because so many marriages last so long.

Stop the madness. Stop saying divorce rates are at 50%!

Even according to that artice, it never has gone beyond 41% and divorce rates are actually in decline.

JMS

Share this post


Link to post

To say that people should look to marry people who they find to have similar interests and communicate well with them is one thing. To say that people should avoid marrying people from other races is another one.

Good thing "avoid" is not used in the quote then and instead the quotes is recommendomg "what people should look to marry" as in your first form.

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question”

Share this post


Link to post

My wife teaches YW, and the manual she uses seems very outdated. As for Church sanctioned racism, I like what USU said it is one to suggest what kind of couplings have the best chances it is another think to be racist about it.

As for my experience and racism. I find it exists within individuals, the raicism I see is one individuals and not a Church policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×