The Priesthood Ban

[LDSToronto]

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

I'm not sure where the advice against 'unequal yoking' came from. If you are referring to Pres. Kimballs advice, I don't see how that is, in anyway, a warning against 'unequal yoking' in marriage. Perhaps you could explain how you have interpreted that way?

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.

I will answer this in detail in a few minutes - I also owe Jason a similar answer.

H.

[DanGB]

Delete double post

[LeSellers]

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.

I missed nothing. However, you made an erroneous statement, and I corrected it. Nothing more.

Lehi

[LDSToronto]

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.

So, to understand better what SWK was attempting to say and attempting to teach, I went directly to the source: Marriage and Divorce and found the quote, which I will reprint here in it's entirety:

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

As it turns out, SWK was stating that race matters because, in 1976, as we are all aware, blacks could not partake of the sealing ordinances. Regardless of how I feel about the whole issue surrounding blacks and withholding the priesthood, this statement makes sense given the context. Taken as a whole, this counsel was appropriate for members pre-1978, when an interracial marriage had the potential to stand in the way of a temple marriage.

Now, contrast this to the quote found in today's Aaronic Priesthood Manual #3

[LDSToronto]

I missed nothing. However, you made an erroneous statement, and I corrected it. Nothing more.

Lehi

Ah, my mistake then. To clarify, you understood the comparison I was making, you were just 'dotting an i and crossing a t' that I hadn't dotted and crossed in my brevity. Fair enough.

[USU78]

So, to understand better what SWK was attempting to say and attempting to teach, I went directly to the source: Marriage and Divorce and found the quote, which I will reprint here in it's entirety:

[snipsies]

As it turns out, SWK was stating that race matters because, in 1976, as we are all aware, blacks could not partake of the sealing ordinances. Regardless of how I feel about the whole issue surrounding blacks and withholding the priesthood, this statement makes sense given the context. Taken as a whole, this counsel was appropriate for members pre-1978, when an interracial marriage had the potential to stand in the way of a temple marriage.

Now, contrast this to the quote found in today's Aaronic Priesthood Manual #3

[snipsies]

The original context of the quote is missing. What was intended to be advice against mixed race marriage because of the specific possibility of denying one a saving ordinance due to the pre-1978 priesthood ban is now invalid, because any worthy member is allowed in the temple and can partake of all ordinances.

While the original context has disappeared with the 1978 revelation, the advice to marry within one's race has not. Instead, a context-specific teaching has been stripped of it's original meaning and is now being taught as a general piece of advice to priest-age young men.

More to the point, I believe this finally lays to rest the use of the word 'racial'. SWK definitely did use it to mean one's genetic heritage, as evidenced by his words, "one survey reveals that about 90 percent of the temple marriages hold fast. Because of this, we recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background"

What say you, apologists? Can we somehow find a way to justify a change in meaning to SWK's original, very specific, advice? Is it fair to say, 'Well, yes, in 1976, the advice meant one thing, but today, it means something completely different'? How is the contextual switch justified, given the two statements have two different meanings?

Any chance of actually addressing my two questions, which were:

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.

?? Your offering doesn't come close to addressing either.

[thesometimesaint]

LDSToronto:

Skin color doesn't matter to me either. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't represent one more area of difference that the potential couple must deal with.

[DanGB]

LDSToronto:

Skin color doesn't matter to me either. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't represent one more area of difference that the potential couple must deal with.

Hell, different skin color may be the least of our problems in marriage today. There seems to be a growing group who believe being the same sex is needed in marriage today!!! Those are the folks that need counseling IMO!!!

[maupayman]

As I understand it, the current official position is "we don't know". Given what little I know about the history of the ban, that makes alot of sense.

My questian is: why do we "need" an explanation?

Isnt the fact that the ban existed and then lifted good enough?

You may be happy with no explanation. Any black people that I have discusse mormonism with have wanted an explanation. It seems like a reasonable request from them. A friend of mine served in Harlem for about a year and claimed that this was the question he dealt with the most there.

[thesometimesaint]

DanGB:

Homosexuality is not a mental health issue. People can do it with a tree for all I care, but if the human were to come to me claiming to really love that tree enough to marry it. Then WE WILL have some interesting talks.

[LDSToronto]

Any chance of actually addressing my two questions, which were:

?? Your offering doesn't come close to addressing either.

Yes, well, I didn't really want to get into a debate about SSM. And, I believe I asked for clarification around the 'unequal yoking' comment and how you were able to conclude that SWK's statement was somehow related to 'unequal yoking', because, for the life of me, I can't see the connection. And if I can't see the connection, I can't very well answer your question.

However, I think I showed, in my latest post, that SWK was speaking, unequivocally, about race, and it's connection to the temple ordinances in 1976. Removal of the temple context via the 1978 declaration still means that SWK was speaking about using race as a determinant for marriage, but without the original context there is a now the following difference:

Original: Don't enter a mixed marriage because you may be denied saving ordinances

Current: Don't enter a mixed marriage because...

There is no reason given to replace the original context, however, some have taken it upon themselves to introduce new contexts which, frankly, don't make a lot of sense. I'm unsure how we can still use SWK's comment to teach something that is no longer valid.

H.

[USU78]

Homosexuality is not a mental health issue.

That's rather a tautology, isn't it? I mean, before a certain date a certain organization said it was: after that certain date that certain organization said it wasn't.

USU "Who didn't get a vote" 78

[LDSToronto]

That's rather a tautology, isn't it? I mean, before a certain date a certain organization said it was: after that certain date that certain organization said it wasn't.

USU "Who didn't get a vote" 78

Kinda reminds me of something that was true before June 8, 1978, and something that wasn't true after June 8, 1978.

H.

[USU78]

Yes, well, I didn't really want to get into a debate about SSM. And, I believe I asked for clarification around the 'unequal yoking' comment and how you were able to conclude that SWK's statement was somehow related to 'unequal yoking', because, for the life of me, I can't see the connection. And if I can't see the connection, I can't very well answer your question.

However, I think I showed, in my latest post, that SWK was speaking, unequivocally, about race, and it's connection to the temple ordinances in 1976. Removal of the temple context via the 1978 declaration still means that SWK was speaking about using race as a determinant for marriage, but without the original context there is a now the following difference:

Original: Don't enter a mixed marriage because you may be denied saving ordinances

Current: Don't enter a mixed marriage because...

There is no reason given to replace the original context, however, some have taken it upon themselves to introduce new contexts which, frankly, don't make a lot of sense. I'm unsure how we can still use SWK's comment to teach something that is no longer valid.

You young guys have missed out on so much. Here's the scriptural basis used time after time after time:

2 Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Saul/Paul is addressing marriage and other associations with the goyim. His pronouncement has been used many times in talks on dating, marriage, and all sorts of things. Here are 20 of the 23 recent mentions I found in about 2 minutes of searching, but my memories of these kinds of things in priesthood, primary, and sunday school lessons, not to mention conference addresses, goes back to the '60s, and I've heard it so much it's hard to believe anybody would have missed it:

1.

Autn:reference - BookChapter_032f7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____

Lesson 36: Marriage Standards

Young Women Manual 3

A yoke, which is a wooden beam, links the animals at the necks. If they were

[USU78]

Kinda reminds me of something that was true before June 8, 1978, and something that wasn't true after June 8, 1978.

H.

Revelation is tautology. What G-d says is right, because it's G-d saying it.

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

Such is the nature of all science. It doesn't change the facts, just our interpretation/understanding of those facts. IE. right now there is a discussion among subatomic particle physicists of the actual size of the proton. The fact is that the proton has always, since right after the Big Bang, been that size. It is our understanding of that fact that has changed. Hopefully for the better.

[LDSToronto]

You young guys have missed out on so much. Here's the scriptural basis used time after time after time:

Saul/Paul is addressing marriage and other associations with the goyim. His pronouncement has been used many times in talks on dating, marriage, and all sorts of things. Here are 20 of the 23 recent mentions I found in about 2 minutes of searching, but my memories of these kinds of things in priesthood, primary, and sunday school lessons, not to mention conference addresses, goes back to the '60s, and I've heard it so much it's hard to believe anybody would have missed it:

Well, I've always heard 'unequally yoked' explained as equality in marriage, in the sense that husband nor wife is greater than the other, and that both share equal responsibility and burden in marriage, and I've heard it explained that we should be equally yoked in our ability to serve in the Church. I've never heard it to mean that husband and wife have to have the same race, same education, same economic status, or same social class.

Are you saying, then, that equal yoking means that one needs to be the same race, same education, same economic status, and same social class as their spouse?

H.

[USU78]

Well, I've always heard 'unequally yoked' explained as equality in marriage, in the sense that husband nor wife is greater than the other, and that both share equal responsibility and burden in marriage, and I've heard it explained that we should be equally yoked in our ability to serve in the Church. I've never heard it to mean that husband and wife have to have the same race, same education, same economic status, or same social class.

Are you saying, then, that equal yoking means that one needs to be the same race, same education, same economic status, and same social class as their spouse?

H.

I'm not asserting anything, nor have I. I have been, from the first, putting the race issue into its larger context wrt marriage partners. It is but one factor among many, including economic status, education, social condition, and any of a number of factors which might affect long-term compatibility . . . hence the repeated advice not to date who you don't wanna marry . . . and not to let hormones get the better of your better judgment. There's nothing of moral imperatives here. It's simply good marriage advice that you would give your own daughter or son. Accordingly, making connections with ssm political activities is highly inappropriate.

[thesometimesaint]

LDSToronto:

I think those are factors to consider, but not necessarily determinative.

IE. A grade school dropout and a PHd holder CAN make a successful marriage. It is just harder to do.

IE. A billionaire and a person with limited financial abilities CAN make a successful marriage. It is just harder to do.

IE. A person from a very poor background, and a person from a very privileged background CAN make a successful marriage. It is just harder to do.

There are really no differences that a couple CAN NOT overcome. If they both want to do it. It is just harder to do. Two separate individuals with their individual wants, desires, hopes, and needs, coming together to make a successful marriage is hard enough. How many more differences do you want to add to that mix?

There really is truth to the old maxim that we tend to marry the person next door.

[LDSToronto]

I'm not asserting anything, nor have I. I have been, from the first, putting the race issue into its larger context wrt marriage partners. It is but one factor among many, including economic status, education, social condition, and any of a number of factors which might affect long-term compatibility . . . hence the repeated advice not to date who you don't wanna marry . . . and not to let hormones get the better of your better judgment. There's nothing of moral imperatives here. It's simply good marriage advice that you would give your own daughter or son. Accordingly, making connections with ssm political activities is highly inappropriate.

Ok, I understand what you are saying now. But, and I really can't understand why everyone is skirting around this, SWK's advice was not about marriage in general, it was specifically about the fact that one can't marry in the temple if they marry someone who is black. Now that one can marry anyone worthy, the question of race does not matter.

And because of that I can't understand two things:

1) Why the church keeps that teaching in the manual

2) Why some are bending over backwards to point out that race matters in marriage

Look, the original context and reason for SWK's statement is now gone. Kinda means the advice he gave is no longer relevant. Marry a worthy spouse, if that matters to you, yes, that's what I'll tell my kids. But be cautious about marrying someone who isn't white? Ya, not really advice I want my kids to hear.

H.

[Jason]

As it turns out, SWK was stating that race matters because, in 1976, as we are all aware, blacks could not partake of the sealing ordinances.

That is admittedly one possible reading, but is it the only one? In other words, was President Kimball referring only to the fact that blacks could not at the time partake in the sealing ordinances?

If so, why the references to background issues (education, economic, social, religion) other than race in the same quote?

And consider that President Kimball was giving this advice to black members as well as members of other races. It wasn't "we recommend that people of other races do not marry blacks (because they cannot at this time receive the sealing ordinances)" - it was (paraphrasing) "we recommend that everyone (blacks, whites, hispanics, asians, etc.) marry into their own racial (cultural?), educational, social, economic, and faith background".

More to the point, I believe this finally lays to rest the use of the word 'racial'. SWK definitely did use it to mean one's genetic heritage, as evidenced by his words, "one survey reveals that about 90 percent of the temple marriages hold fast. Because of this, we recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background"

I continue to disagree that the issue is that clear cut. If Pres. Kimball had stopped at just race then I might have agreed with you.

[DanGB]

DanGB:

People can do it with a tree for all I care, but if the human were to come to me claiming to really love that tree enough to marry it. Then WE WILL have some interesting talks.

Whoa, hold on here for a minute. What kind of trees are we talking about?!

I was diving down in Cayman last month and saw a gorgeous palm w some impressive coconuts!! I just wouldn't be too quick in making fun of all trees!!

[USU78]

Such is the nature of all science. It doesn't change the facts, just our interpretation/understanding of those facts.

Yup . . . politics and funding . . . funding and politics . . . such is the nature of politics . . . er . . . science

[thesometimesaint]

DanGB:

I like tree's. My progenitors painted themselves blue, and worshiped them. But TTBOMK they never married a tree.

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

True, but beside the point. Without funding very little science would get done. The Internet is a creation of DARPA.