Jump to content

The Priesthood Ban


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

Regarding the issue of how eligibility for the ban was determined and whether skin color or appearance was a factor, this is an interesting historical note:

Within the United States, cases in which there was no acknowledged Negro ancestry were ultimately determined on the basis of appearance. Responding to an inquiry about a physical test for "colored blood," the First Presidency wrote that they assumed "there has been none yet discovered. People in the South have this problem to meet all the time in a practical way, and we assume that as a practical matter the people there would be able to determine whether or not the sister in question has colored blood. Normally the dark skin and kinky hair would indicate but one thing."

( First Presidency letter from George Albert Smith, Clark, and McKay, to Francis W. Brown, 13 Jan. 1947, Bennion papers.)

Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview

Lester E. Bush, Jr.

Link to post

That a marriage is easier if the two partners don't have to also worry about cross-cultural conflicts? That the Church recommends that people avoid putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of their marriages?

What horrific advice.

I love the fact that in this country, so many of today's children are blend of Irish, German, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, black, Korean, etc.

Do you really agree with this advice?

BTW, people of different races, can come from the same culture. If the bretheren meant "cultural" then why did the say "racial."

Link to post

And from the same article, describing the change to allow dark-skinned Pacific-islanders to have the priesthood:

Receiving no publicity, though possibly of greater significance than the foregoing developments, were subtle indications of a new flexibility in the basic Negro doctrine itself. With the concurrence of President McKay, a young man of known Negro ancestry was ordained to the priesthood after receiving a patriarchal blessing which did not assign him to a "cursed" lineage. In another case, President McKay authorized two children with Negro ancestry to be sealed in the temple to the white couple who had adopted them. Additionally, the last vestige of discrimination based solely on skin color was eliminated, as priesthood restrictions were removed from all dark races in the South Pacific.* Finally, it became evident that still another policy had been supplanted as the rare members of the priesthood who married blacks were not debarred from their offices.

*This point was made public by President Harold B. Lee, in an interview reported in the Salt Lake Tribune, 24 Sept. 1972, which reported, "President Lee said skin color is not what keeps the Negro from the priesthood. It [is] strictly a matter of lineage and involves only African Negroes. In comparison, he noted, dark or black islanders, such as Fijians, Tongans, Samoans, or Maoris, are all permitted full rights to the priesthood." Another policy change which had no contemporary impact, but which would have posed an interesting problem for nineteenth century literalists, was the decision to stop segregating negro and white blood in the Church hospitals' blood banks. This decision, prompted by Public Health Service rulings and affecting many hospitals nationally, has no doubt resulted in many instances wherein priesthood holders have had several drops of "Negro blood" in their veins, at least for a few weeks.

Link to post

My impression of the Church's position - that the ban was ordained of God but that we don't know why - appears to be based on a multitude of sources forming a general impression rather than a specific quote.

Ok

Link to post

What horrific advice.

I love the fact that in this country, so many of today's children are blend of Irish, German, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, black, Korean, etc.

Do you really agree with this advice?

I agree that building a lasting marriage is easier if you have similiar cultural backgrounds, economic backgrounds, and religious beliefs (as my wife and I have).

Acheiving a lasting marriage should obviously be a more important goal than acheiving a diverse marriage.

BTW, people of different races, can come from the same culture. If the bretheren meant "cultural" then why did the say "racial."

The context, in which they also mention economic, social class, and religious beliefs makes it clear that the intent was to advise people to marry someone they have much in common with culturally.
Link to post

What is taught today? That a marriage is easier if the two partners don't have to also worry about cross-cultural conflicts? That the Church recommends that people avoid putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of their marriages?

In the words of Mugato, from Zoolander, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"....

Seriously, am I the only person that thinks that counseling people to marry within their own race, not to mention social, economic, and educational classes, is absolutely reprehensible? How many here want their children to marry within their race? And if you do, how do you hold the belief that you aren't racist, while still proffering such advice?

And, as a faithful Mormon (I consider myself to be), how do you condone the church teaching this stuff to your kids?

H.

Link to post

Seriously, am I the only person that thinks that counseling people to marry within their own race, not to mention social, economic, and educational classes, is absolutely reprehensible?

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I don't find it reprehensible to counsel your children to marry someone who has much in common with them, including their cultural, social, and educational background. And you forgot to mention religion.
How many here want their children to marry within their race? And if you do, how do you hold the belief that you aren't racist, while still proffering such advice?
I prefer my children to be happy in their marriages.

Marrying someone who is from generally the same background will remove some potential obstacles to that goal, so I have no problem recommending it (note - recommending - not actively discouraging something else).

Marrying someone from generally (note the "generally" - also present in the President Kimball quote) the same background generally also means someone of the same race. It is the background that is important, however, not the skin color.

Link to post

LDSToronto:

If the divorce stats are any indication successful marriage is hard enough. How many more problems do you, as a faithful member, want to add to it?

I fully support the Church's view on strengthening marriage as taught to the young men. It is only common sense that a marriage is easier the more similar two people are. Ideally, they should be from the same culture and/or race, the same religion, the same economic strata, the same educational background, and the same sex.

Link to post
cinepro:

same sex?

He was making a funny.

And trying to hijack this "1978" thread and make it another anti-prop-8 thread. Don't take the bait.

Link to post

LDSToronto:

If the divorce stats are any indication successful marriage is hard enough. How many more problems do you, as a faithful member, want to add to it?

None. But I hardly think that marriage between races is a problem.

H.

Link to post

None. But I hardly think that marriage between races is a problem.

H.

Would you agree that it is more difficult be married to someone from a different culture than it is to be married to someone from your own culture?

Link to post

I fully support the Church's view on strengthening marriage as taught to the young men. It is only common sense that a marriage is easier the more similar two people are. Ideally, they should be from the same culture and/or race, the same religion, the same economic strata, the same educational background, and the same sex.

:P;):crazy::fool:

Link to post

Would you agree that it is more difficult be married to someone from a different culture than it is to be married to someone from your own culture?

No, but I'd be interested in hearing from you (or anyone), what makes an inter-racial marriage more difficult than a same-race marriage, in 2010.

H.

Link to post

No.

So cultural differences represent no difficulty at all in getting two people to become one? They will never face possible disagreements over the way their respective families did things?

Link to post

No, but I'd be interested in hearing from you (or anyone), what makes an inter-racial marriage more difficult than a same-race marriage, in 2010.

H.

I am not speaking of difficulty in inter-racial marriages, but in inter-cultural marriages.

What makes them more difficult in 2010 is the same thing that has always made them more difficult - two people from radically different backgrounds used to things being done a certain way by their family now confronting a different way, and having to decide together how much of each method, if any, they will take for their own family's use.

My wife is from Idaho, and from a slightly lower income strata than my own family. Even the relatively slight difference between Idaho and Utah is enough to cause some difficulties when we decide how our family is going to do things.

I can't imagine how many more difficulties there would be between our two worldviews if I had married someone from Thailand, as a friend of mine has.

Link to post

What exactly do you mean by 'culture', and is race a part of culture?

By culture I mean general practices followed by a cultural group. Race is not a part of culture but is generally a marker of a seperate culture, as it also (obviously) represents origin in a different group.
Um, that kinda sounds like *every* marriage, not just so-called mixed marriages.
Of course. The difference is one of degree. People from widely different backgrounds will have less in common to begin with and therefore more potential conflicts.
By your own reasoning, you should have reconsidered your proposal of marriage to her and found someone who was raised in the same Utah neighbourhood.
Again, it's a question of degree. Idaho and Utah culture are not that different - I'm just noting that even though they are similar there are distinct differences the have cropped up in our marriage.
Here are some different marriages I've seen, in my own circle of friends:...
The question when recommending a particular kind of relationship is not whether another kind can succeed, it is whether the other kinds are more difficult and the type recommended is more likely to succeed.
Simply put, the counsel given is xenophobic, outdated, and plain wrong.
And I disagree. Aside from the unfortunate use of "racial" when "cultural" would have perhaps served better, I find the quote is good advice. But apparently the Church didn't feel the need to edit President Kimball's quote in order to avoid offending modern sensibilities.
Link to post

And I disagree. Aside from the unfortunate use of "racial" when "cultural" would have perhaps served better, I find the quote is good advice. But apparently the Church didn't feel the need to edit President Kimball's quote in order to avoid offending modern sensibilities.

'Racial' is not the same as 'cultural'. Both have different meanings and carry different weight. I'm sure if he'd meant 'cultural', Pres. Kimball would have said 'cultural'.

A black man Cincinnati and a white man from Cincinnati may have the same cultural heritage but are racially different.

A white woman from Tasmania and a white woman from Wisconsin may have the same racial features, but have different cultural heritages.

Nonetheless, whether you take liberties with the changeability of those words, the advice is still bad.

H.

Link to post

'Racial' is not the same as 'cultural'. Both have different meanings and carry different weight. I'm sure if he'd meant 'cultural', Pres. Kimball would have said 'cultural'.

And you know this...how exactly? Because President Kimball was a racist?
A black man Cincinnati and a white man from Cincinnati may have the same cultural heritage but are racially different.
Actually it could be argued that a black man and a white man from Cincinnati are effectively from two different cultures.
Nonetheless, whether you take liberties with the changeability of those words, the advice is still bad.
And of course I disagree, for the reasons I outlined earlier.
Link to post

He was making a funny.

And trying to hijack this "1978" thread and make it another anti-prop-8 thread. Don't take the bait.

No, the point is that when it comes to "differences" between two people in a marriage, there is no difference greater than that between a man and a woman. Focusing on other superficial differences but ignoring the major one is absurd. If the ideal for marriage is to be as similar as possible, then being similar in gender would have to be of paramount importance for a strong marriage.

Link to post

And you know this...how exactly? Because President Kimball was a racist?

I don't want to accuse President Kimball of racism, however, it's hard to understand this counsel against crossing racial lines when choosing a partner - it sounds a lot like genteel racism to me, but apparently I'm in the minority. I do know that President Kimball chose the word 'racial', not 'cultural'. As I understand it, the two words are not the same - culture refers to the practices of a social group, race refers to the physical and genetic characteristics of an ethnic group.

H.

Link to post

As I understand it, the two words are not the same - culture refers to the practices of a social group, race refers to the physical and genetic characteristics of an ethnic group.

That's the common usage now- which is indicative of the progress we've made in the last fifty years, IMO.

That notwithstanding, there are a LOT of societal and cultural pressures against "mixed-race" marriages today.

Granted, it's nowhere near as bad as it used to be, but it's still hard.

I was physically assaulted and called names for even daring to DATE a Mexican-American girl in High School.

My brother married a Korean woman (whom the family loves to death)- but they've encountered racist name-calling- from both the "white" and Korean communities.

My neices were once derided as half-breeds- by a Korean. My sister was told she married beneath her- because my brother is "white".

Two of my closest buddies in the service married African-American women. They have been called race-traitors because they did not choose black men. Their children have been heckled and assaulted as "milk-chocolate"- by their African-American relatives.

One mixed-race woman I know refused to name a "race" on the census forms because none of them applied to her (she's got African-American, "white", Native American, and Asian bloodlines). The census-taker argued with her and finally checked "African-American" over her protests.

Quite simply- there are more obstacles to a "mixed-race" or multicultural marriage than you seem to believe.

Link to post

JOHN TAYLOR

Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, pg. 304.

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Hams' wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representative upon the earth as well as God

If some LDS believe the flood was a local one, not a universal one, why would God need to preserve the the curse

Can went away from Adam and Eve and found a cursed wife, later one of Noah's sons has to marry a cursed woman, Egyptus.

Why would that be neccessary if the flood was local. Surely there would still be plenty of Cain's descendeants already around the world.

Link to post

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...