The Priesthood Ban

[Areabird]

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.

I also find it difficult to believe that Kimball used the word racial but didn't really mean 'racial'. Race was still a big deal back then. I remember in junior high (late seventies) a black kid--we'll call him Carl--came to the house a few times to visit my sister. My dad liked Carl. He knew Carl's dad and knew that Carl was a good kid. And I had played football with him for several years. But my dad seemed upset that Carl was visiting my sister. When I asked him about it he said "How do you think I'd feel if your sister ended up marrying him?" Maybe my dad was thinking of the cultural struggles they might face, but during that conversation my clear impression was that marrying a black person was absolutely a step down and a scandalous act. My dad had been a bishop just 7 years before.

So based on my personal experience, the mood of members back then was that blacks were now good enough to be members, but that didn't mean you married one.

I agree with LDS Toronto that advice to marry within your race is archaic and a reflection of bigotry during the sixties (and seventies for the Church since they waited so long to embrace blacks).

[USU78]

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.

An appalling double standard here. On the one hand, those who don't self-identify as being of Northern European extraction are encouraged and lauded as brave defenders of their culture and racial identity if they bring up the obvious problems of mixed-race/mixed-culture marriages . . . but when the Church points out and counsels that it shouldn't be encouraged because of those very problems, they're being evil and hateful.

Counsel is just good advice.

Problem is the kneejerk whenever anybody treads too closely to the sacred cow of diversity ueber alles.

[thesometimesaint]

LDSToronto:

There are differences in the way the peoples of the differing races view the same event. That is just a fact of life. I am not putting any moral connotation on those events, or the viewers, just the fact that they are viewed differently.

Cinepro;

Since you are not trying to make a funny. Then your statement is nonsensical, and taken to its theoretical limits would result in no people left on earth.

[LDSToronto]

An appalling double standard here. On the one hand, those who don't self-identify as being of Northern European extraction are encouraged and lauded as brave defenders of their culture and racial identity if they bring up the obvious problems of mixed-race/mixed-culture marriages . . . but when the Church points out and counsels that it shouldn't be encouraged because of those very problems, they're being evil and hateful.

Counsel is just good advice.

Problem is the kneejerk whenever anybody treads too closely to the sacred cow of diversity ueber alles.

I believe a double-standard is in play here as well, but not the same double-standard described here. On the one hand, the Church will not bow to societal desires when it comes to endorsing same-sex marriage (and I don't want to debate that here, simply want to point out the Church's stance). On the other hand, the Church seems to be offering counsel to avoid interracial marriages because, as a few have defended here, society doesn't approve of it.

To sum up - Same-sex marriage is wrong, society wants it, Church says 'no', showing bravery and integrity; racism is wrong, society doesn't fully accept interracial marriage, Church says 'avoid interracial marriage'. Does the latter stance support a moral evil?

H.

[thesometimesaint]

LDSToronto:

You can marry whomever you wish, and the Church won't say boo. But it is being racist for acknowledging that the more similarities a couple has the better chances for a successful marriage there are?

[LDSToronto]

LDSToronto:

You can marry whomever you wish, and the Church won't say boo. But it is being racist for acknowledging that the more similarities a couple has the better chances for a successful marriage there are?

Depends what the similarities are - similar tastes in music, arts, etc, sure. Similar beliefs, sure. Similar skin colours? Not so sure.

H.

[Jason]

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.

Perhaps the problem is that you insist on focusing on one of President Kimball's word choices in one of several criteria that he lists in the quote. When considering all of the criteria he lists in his quote together, his general meaning becomes more clear.

He was saying that people from widely varying backgrounds have more problems in marriage than people who are from similar backgrounds, and that he generally recommends choosing someone froma more similar background.

If President Kimball had used the word "cultural" instead of "racial", would it have meant the same thing in 1977 that it does today? Is it possible that "racial" meant something different to President Kimball in 1977 than it does to you today?

Was "cultural" the most common word choice for the concept at the time, or would "racial" be better at communicate his meaning to his audience of 1977?

[thesometimesaint]

LDSToronto:

Depending on whom marries whom the stats vary from good to equal chance at successful marriage to significantly less chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

I recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guess_Who%27s_Coming_to_Dinner

[Jason]

I believe a double-standard is in play here as well, but not the same double-standard described here. On the one hand, the Church will not bow to societal desires when it comes to endorsing same-sex marriage (and I don't want to debate that here, simply want to point out the Church's stance). On the other hand, the Church seems to be offering counsel to avoid interracial marriages because, as a few have defended here, society doesn't approve of it.

I don't believe the primary reason for giving the advice is avoiding societal disapproval. Rather the primary intent is to avoid internal strife in a marriage.

To sum up - Same-sex marriage is wrong, society wants it, Church says 'no', showing bravery and integrity; racism is wrong, society doesn't fully accept interracial marriage, Church says 'avoid interracial marriage'. Does the latter stance support a moral evil?

You might be able to argue that if societal disapproval was the reason the Church gave the advice. I don't beleive it is.

[LDSToronto]

Perhaps the problem is that you insist on focusing on one of President Kimball's word choices in one of several criteria that he lists in the quote. When considering all of the criteria he lists in his quote together, his general meaning becomes more clear.

He was saying that people from widely varying backgrounds have more problems in marriage than people who are from similar backgrounds, and that he generally recommends choosing someone froma more similar background.

For the record, I don't agree with any of his criteria, other than religion, and only if religion is important to both sides.

If President Kimball had used the word "cultural" instead of "racial", would it have meant the same thing in 1977 that it does today? Is it possible that "racial" meant something different to President Kimball in 1977 than it does to you today?

Was "cultural" the most common word choice for the concept at the time, or would "racial" be better at communicate his meaning to his audience of 1977?

I'm not an linguistic anthropologist (I'm guessing you aren't either), but, given that racial tension in 1976 was probably higher than it is today (and I'm just guessing), I'd imagine that the use of the word 'racial' was not the same as using the word 'cultural' But, Jason, you seem to be the one who wants to make the substitution, so the burden rests on you to show that, given the times, that 'racial' is indeed a substitute for 'cultural', and that SWK's words are not instructions to discriminate based on skin colour or genetic heritage.

H.

[thesometimesaint]

LDSToronto:

Yet statistics show that the more things a couple have in common the better their chances for a successful marriage. I hope you are not throwing caution to the wind in other area's of your life.

The simple fact is that we all discriminate in choosing a marriage partner. Everyone in the world is not an ideal match for everyone. SWK advice is still valid; the more things a couple have in common the better their chances are for a successful marriages. The Church wants all couples to be successful in this life and in the next. It is not in the business of promoting less than successful ones.

[Jason]

For the record, I don't agree with any of his criteria, other than religion, and only if religion is important to both sides.

I agree with Pres. Kimball that differences in social, economic, and educational background are potential sources of conflict in building a lasting marriage as well, and that it is generally better to avoid them.

I'm not an linguistic anthropologist (I'm guessing you aren't either)

No, but I am married to a linguist and hold an English degree myself. Similar educational backgrounds and all that.

...but, given that racial tension in 1976 was probably higher than it is today (and I'm just guessing), I'd imagine that the use of the word 'racial' was not the same as using the word 'cultural' But, Jason, you seem to be the one who wants to make the substitution, so the burden rests on you to show that, given the times, that 'racial' is indeed a substitute for 'cultural', and that SWK's words are not instructions to discriminate based on skin colour or genetic heritage.

I would not say that they are exact synonymns, but certainly the word "racial" in 1977 did not have quite the same negative connotations that it does today.

Coming up with some contemporary uses of the word that parallel how I believe Pres. Kimball was using it might be an interesting research project, but not really one I have time for.

In any case if you view the context in which the Church still quotes Pres. Kimball (given in the link to the Aaronic Priesthood manual), you will see that it is not in fact used to teach descrimination based on race. So whether Pres. Kimball meant racial or cultural is no longer really relevent to what the Church currently teaches.

[cinepro]

Cinepro;

Since you are not trying to make a funny. Then your statement is nonsensical, and taken to its theoretical limits would result in no people left on earth.

Possibly, but according to President Kimball's logic, that last generation would have the strongest marriages ever!

[LDSToronto]

I agree with Pres. Kimball that differences in social, economic, and educational background are potential sources of conflict in building a lasting marriage as well, and that it is generally better to avoid them.

I guess what it boils down to is this: any difference can be overcome, and some simply don't matter. In my opinion, racial differences simply don't matter. Nor do the others, except for religion.

No, but I am married to a linguist and hold an English degree myself. Similar educational backgrounds and all that.

Fascinating! I, on the other hand, have nothing in common with my wife when it comes to education - she is far more educated than I am, and in a completely different field - me, mathematics, her, healthcare.

I would not say that they are exact synonymns, but certainly the word "racial" in 1977 did not have quite the same negative connotations that it does today.

Coming up with some contemporary uses of the word that parallel how I believe Pres. Kimball was using it might be an interesting research project, but not really one I have time for.

Well, we agree on one thing - that this would be an interesting research project. Words, especially when spoken from positions of authority, carry meaning that go beyond what the dictionary defines. I think it would also be cool to study how apologetics reduces cognitive dissonance when faith leaders take positions that seemingly contradict morally right teachings.

In any case if you view the context in which the Church still quotes Pres. Kimball (given in the link to the Aaronic Priesthood manual), you will see that it is not in fact used to teach descrimination based on race. So whether Pres. Kimball meant racial or cultural is no longer really relevent to what the Church currently teaches.

Then the church ought to discredit what was said and take this out of a manual used to teach 16 year old boys.

H.

[Jason]

I guess what it boils down to is this: any difference can be overcome, and some simply don't matter. In my opinion, racial differences simply don't matter. Nor do the others, except for religion.

I'm not saying that they can't be overcome, merely that you could do yourself a favor by avoiding them in the first place.

Why would you say religion does matter where the others do not?

Then the church ought to discredit what was said and take this out of a manual used to teach 16 year old boys.

Obviously the Church shares my opinion that "racial" was not meant to be read as "skin color".

[LDSToronto]

Why would you say religion does matter where the others do not?

Religion, unlike the other factors, is a choice. One can choose to live a religion, discard it, adopt it, live it's precepts to whatever degree desired. I know one can't chose their own race, and I also know that many are disadvantaged with respect to education, social, and economic class. Sure, one can rise above their situation, but, unlike religion, one doesn't choose to be poor and uneducated (presuming we believe that one's life outcome is dependent, somewhat, on social factors)

At every moment of my life, I'm aware that being a Latter-day Saint is a choice that I am making, and that I could abandon that choice at any moment. I also know that if I choose to live my life as a Latter-day Saint, my values are less likely to be compromised if I marry a Latter-day Saint. Presumably, I wish to keep those values intact, given I have chosen to live by those same values. If I choose to marry someone who is not a Latter-day Saint, I may have to compromise on those values, and that could cause strife as I try to either change my spouse to conform to my belief or I let my values slide to accommodate my spouses needs.

This doesn't mean that I think every marriage should consist of both spouses with the same faith. I think, ideally, a marriage must allow individual expression of belief. Personally, I'd be just as happy married to an atheist as I would to a Mormon, if I loved her, because I know that I can choose to accommodate her beliefs without forcing my own views on her.

To sum up, with religion, we have made a choice to live by a faith tradition, and will most likely be able to keep that faith tradition if we marry someone with the same faith tradition.

Obviously the Church shares my opinion that "racial" was not meant to be read as "skin color".

Yet, you can at least see how some, including myself, would take it to mean something like that?

H.

[USU78]

I believe a double-standard is in play here as well, but not the same double-standard described here. On the one hand, the Church will not bow to societal desires when it comes to endorsing same-sex marriage (and I don't want to debate that here, simply want to point out the Church's stance). On the other hand, the Church seems to be offering counsel to avoid interracial marriages because, as a few have defended here, society doesn't approve of it.

That's nonsense and no reasonable person would come to that conclusion. Anybody that's read or heard of the Proclamation on the Family would understand the philosophical, scriptural, and theological reasons for LDS opposition to homosexual 'marriage.' The reasons therefor have nothing, Nothing, NOTHING to do with racial issues, racial politics, or threatened race wars. Likewise the erstwhile priesthood ban on Black Africans and its later lifting have nothing, Nothing, NOTHING to do with "societal desires." It is dishonest to tie the two issues together.

To sum up - Same-sex marriage is wrong, society wants it, Church says 'no', showing bravery and integrity; racism is wrong, society doesn't fully accept interracial marriage, Church says 'avoid interracial marriage'. Does the latter stance support a moral evil?

Advice to avoid "unequally yokings" in marriage is just that, advice. I've probably heard the advice, derived from Saul/Pauline scripture, a hundred times over the years, with religious differences leading any number of lesser potential problems that might face married couples. If you haven't heard that language used in Church publications, talks and whatnot over the years, you haven't been paying attention. It is dishonest to focus on one aspect of that general advice and infer therefrom that the Church is somehow accommodating to something that is a moral evil. It has never been cast as a moral issue. It is not honest to claim it has.

[Jason]

To sum up, with religion, we have made a choice to live by a faith tradition, and will most likely be able to keep that faith tradition if we marry someone with the same faith tradition.

And you don't see any parallel with the other issues Pres. Kimball mentions?

Yes they may not be choices (though one's religious choice, it seems to me, is also very often effected by the same factors that determine social, educational, and economic background), but I see the same sorts of conflict arising from them.

Example: how you treat a sick person.

In my family, if you got sick you would basically be left in bed in your room, with mom checking on you from time to time but generally forgotten until you felt better.

In my wife's family, sick people are quite pampered and other family members commiserate with the ill individual.

Obviously my wife and I will have to decide what we're going to do in such situations.

Yet, you can at least see how some, including myself, would take it to mean something like that?

Certainly, which is why I've been trying to get you to question your first impression somewhat.

[LDSToronto]

That's nonsense and no reasonable person would come to that conclusion.

You know, I do my best to treat people here with some amount of respect. I respect that you may disagree with my perspective, but I will assure you, that I am a reasonable person, and have indeed, come to that conclusion.

Put another way, calling my opinion 'nonsense' and calling me an 'unreasonable person' doesn't really make me want to consider much more of what you have to say.

Try again, USU78, I'm sure you've got something important to say.

H.

[USU78]

You know, I do my best to treat people here with some amount of respect. I respect that you may disagree with my perspective, but I will assure you, that I am a reasonable person, and have indeed, come to that conclusion.

Put another way, calling my opinion 'nonsense' and calling me an 'unreasonable person' doesn't really make me want to consider much more of what you have to say.

Try again, USU78, I'm sure you've got something important to say.

Let's try this, then:

Tell us why it's reasonable to link advice against "unequal yoking" and politically active support of items like Prop 8 and DOMA.

Tell us why it makes sense to assert that advice against interracial marriage because of its potential for insurmountable pressure on marriage partners is a moral evil.

[All-Seeing Eye]

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

George Albert Smith

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

David O. McKay

The First Presidency

In light of the above (thanks, Kamenraider), I don't see how anyone can say that the ban was a matter of policy rather than doctrine. Yet, in another thread on this board, LDS posters were indeed claiming that the ban was not doctrinal.

[LeSellers]

Same-sex marriage is wrong, ...

This part is correct.

... society wants it,

In locale after locale, when the question is posed on a ballot, the fact is that society rejects same-sex "marriage". There are good reasons for this rejection.

The only parts of "society" that "wants" it are those who want to weaken families and destroy the culture.

Church says 'no', showing bravery and integrity;

Yes, it takes courage to stand up to bullies and tell them what they are doing is evil.

Lehi

[Darth J]

I'm beginning to feel like a broken record....I know Bruce R. McConkie was not a prophet but he is/was very inspired.

Apostles are not prophets, seers and revelators?

"All Are Alike unto God". Speech given Aug 1978...oops this doesn't work.

"All Are Alike unto God" Hope this link works!

Why are these statements inspired, but teachings by apostles about the lineage of Cain and lack of valiance in the pre-mortal existence not inspired?

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past 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.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don

[LDSToronto]

This part is correct.

In locale after locale, when the question is posed on a ballot, the fact is that society rejects same-sex "marriage". There are good reasons for this rejection.

The only parts of "society" that "wants" it are those who want to weaken families and destroy the culture.

Yes, it takes courage to stand up to bullies and tell them what they are doing is evil.

Lehi

Lehi, I think you missed the entire point of what I was trying to say... I wasn't attempting to open up a debate on SSM, rather, I wanted to show that the Church will oppose some things, and bow to others.

H.

[DanGB]

In light of the above (thanks, Kamenraider), I don't see how anyone can say that the ban was a matter of policy rather than doctrine. Yet, in another thread on this board, LDS posters were indeed claiming that the ban was not doctrinal.

Therein is the root of a problem that needs to be addressed. Members are confused, the Church is silent and would rather distant itself from the issue. The younger generation of our members are great readers of history and know better. And the African American community still avoids our gospel like the plague.

Time for an apology? Absolutely!