Is the Church sometimes influenced by the philosophies of men?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, unfortunately, yes. It's taught every three years to the Aaronic Priesthood. - including this year.

Compare the results of the vote with the following statement by President Spencer W. Kimball. Have a young man read it.

[SkepticTheist]

However, most likely, the Priesthood restriction on Africans was. Note the date of the original quote: 1977. Don't choose to be married to someone who couldn't go to the temple with you, and would automatically deny in-this-life blessings to your future children. Right? I think the advice as found in the current manual is as moot and outdated as is all discriminating racial discussions and opinions prior to 1978. How it passed correlation, and continues to be taught to teenage boys, I have no idea.

Well, I don't know about that, because cultural customs do not necessarily equate to bigotry just for bigotry's sake. Brigham Young and the rest were actually following something that came out of their cultural environment and the doctrines that were imported from Protestantism. I seriously doubt that they were bigots just to be bigots. I think they were following the best light they had at the time, and if they would have had more light and knowledge than they then had, they would have gladly given the priesthood to the blacks. I don't think there was any racial hatred or loathing involved generally. They believed they were constrained by the rational reasons that they had in their minds that the Lord had prohibited those people from the priesthood. That is the fault of whoever made that doctrine up from protestantism. that isn't the fault of the LDS who inherited it.

Ed Goble

[David T]

This is not really a teaching against it. What it is doing is advising "generally" and giving a recommendation not to. If you do you are not going to hell and it is not a sin. Just like you should generally marry people that are the same faith. It is fact that those that enter in marriage with people of a different faith or race have a tougher time from teh get go. I am not saying that it can't work. Just that it is tougher. And the brotheren seem to agree.

Advising and giving a recommendation not to do enter into an interracial marriage, with a quote from a President of the Church, as part of a repeated and current lesson to teenage priesthood holders, does not seems like it would be understood by most who hear it as teaching against the practice?

[David T]

Well, I don't know about that, because cultural customs do not necessarily equate to bigotry just for bigotry's sake. Brigham Young and the rest were actually following something that came out of their cultural environment and the doctrines that were imported from Protestantism. I seriously doubt that they were bigots just to be bigots. I think they were following the best light they had at the time, and if they would have had more light and knowledge than they then had, they would have gladly given the priesthood to the blacks. I don't think there was any racial hatred or loathing involved generally. They believed they were constrained by the rational reasons that they had in their minds that the Lord had prohibited those people from the priesthood. That is the fault of whoever made that doctrine up from protestantism. that isn't the fault of the LDS who inherited it.

Ed Goble

I agree. That doesn't change the fact that its initial source was based on racist tradition, and not revelation. Informed and well thought out racist policies and ideas with good God-fearing and best-for-the-people intentions are still racist.

[SkepticTheist]

I agree. That doesn't change the fact that its initial source was based on racist tradition, and not revelation. Informed and well thought out racist policies and ideas with good intentions are still racist.

I agree, but this statement you have just made is based on a judgment made with having further light and knowledge that you do after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20. Racist is a strong word when making a value judgment on people who do not share those same values at a certain point in time as a result of false tradition.

Ed Goble

[David T]

I agree, but this statement you have just made is based on a judgment made with having further light and knowledge that you do after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20. Racist is a strong word when making a value judgment on people who do not share those same values at a certain point in time as a result of false tradition.

Ed Goble

It's not a value judgement, at least from me. I'm not a presentist. I understand context. A huge percent of America was racist during most of its history. That doesn't mean I think that same percentage were chooseing to be wicked people. That doesn't mean I think they were choosing to be racist in order for justification to oppress (although some did). I think there were and are many god-fearing and god-loving and other-wise charitable and faithful individuals who, in history, have still been traditionally racist.

[Pahoran]

However, most likely, the Priesthood restriction on Africans was. Note the date of the original quote: 1977. The impression I get from it, knowing its context, is, "Don't choose to be married to someone who couldn't go to the temple with you, and would automatically deny in-this-life blessings to your future children." Right?

Not right. Sorry Nack, but that's not what it says. Let's look at it again:

[SkepticTheist]

It's not a value judgement, at least from me. I'm not a presentist. I understand context. A huge percent of America was racist during most of its history. That doesn't mean I think that same percentage were chooseing to be wicked people. That doesn't mean I think they were choosing to be racist in order for justification to oppress (although some did). I think there were and are many god-fearing and god-loving and other-wise charitable and faithful individuals who, in history, have still been traditionally racist.

Fair enough.

Ed

[WalkerW]

It is good advice. It isn't binding, but I would think that, on average, coming from the same social, cultural, economic, educational, and religious background would be beneficial to one's relationship. I think it is meant to make one take a moment and think, rather than dive in with a nonsensical Romeoesque attitude. Race is often associated with a number of those aspects. I think Nack might have a point about the 1977 context, but I still think the advice is pretty sound.

And I'm a white guy married to a Hispanic woman. Yet, we share the same economic, educational, and religious background. Our social and cultural backgrounds are a bit different (I come from a Southern family; her parents are from Mexico), but we are both Americanized enough that it doesn't make that much of difference. If she was more like, say, her mom, I probably wouldn't have been interested in her and vice versa. Too much of a cultural difference.

[WalkerW]

But I do fear that there might be some truth to what Nack says.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Advising and giving a recommendation not to do enter into an interracial marriage, with a quote from a President of the Church, as part of a repeated and current lesson to teenage priesthood holders, does not seems like it would be understood by most who hear it as teaching against the practice?

I see it as exactly was what it is a "recommendation" Or IOW a suggestion.

Notice how there is no condemnation if one were to enter into it.

There is no talk of it being bad or a sin or that one wont be in good standing in the church.

I guess this is just hair splitting. I doubt this is what PUT had in mind when he said what he said.

[Obiwan]

I just got off the phone with my Mom who joined the Church in Canada in 1967 and has remained here ever since. She said she didn't even know blacks couldn't hold the priesthood till the revelation came. she said, her reaction was one of "oh hey, that's cool I guess" and she gave birth to me in Sept.! Canada had its own issues at that time. We had the Quiet revolution, FLQ crisis, Trudeumania, Randy Bachman joining the Church, these were the things that LDS Canadians were really talking about in the 60's and 70's. She said that the first black Mormon she ever knew joined in the 90's. Plus too our Stake wasn't made until 1979 so in mid to late '78 the then district was gearing up for that, so blacks getting the priesthood was hardly a concern.

I concure.... I first started attending the Church learning about it a couple of years before the ban being lifted, and having been a part of several religions prior to that I found the LDS Church to not be "racist" in any sense of the word, especially compared to most of the other religions I had attended prior. I didn't even know there was a ban because of this. And I didn't find out about it myself until the revelation occurred.

Later I left the Church primarily for this issue and a couple of others, but fortunately I learned better and further beyond my then current modern social conventions.

The Church was so "not" racist in actual practice and real world behaviors, attitudes etc., that I would liken it to how women aren't officially given the Priesthood. Nothing sexist in the Church because of that policy, and likewise nothing racist then in the Church because of that prior policy. Of course, I shouldn't say nothing. Because, I know because of the times there were some seeming racist or ethno-centrist remarks at times made in history, so I know it wasn't perfectly the same, but close in my view.

[phaedrus ut]

Here's the official Church website:

www.lds.org

Can you find even one instance in, say, the last quarter-century of "the church ... teaching against interracial marriage"?

I can find an instance from 2011. In the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual for 2011, Lesson #31, Choosing and Eternal Companion.

Compare the results of the vote with the following statement by President Spencer W. Kimball. Have a young man read it.

[phaedrus ut]

This is seriously lame, dude. Try again.

See above. Apologize below

Phaedrus

[Calm]

I think all churches and, indeed, religions, are somewhat influenced by events and ideas from mankind in general.

Definitely agree here. For one thing, where do the ideas come from that we go and ask the Lord for or about, whether it's for something concrete like a job or relationship or more abstract like knowledge. We look around our environment and learn what we are missing or what is special that we have, etc.

For instance, Mormons do not smoke, drink, or partake of caffeine. That's not scriptural, in the most literal sense. Those rules were created so that Mormons would be plagued less with health problems associated with those bad habits. I believe Joseph Smith, in his wisdom, and the early founders of the Church like Brigham Young, etc., were simply looking out after us and concerned for our health.

Remember, back in the 1800s there were no antibiotics, no cancer treatments, and people usually didn't live very long as we do today.

Sometimes these man-made rules are for our own good, and I believe God might have put it in the founders' heads to make rules like that, because, to me, it is simply healthy living and common sense.

There have been studies showing some significant health benefits for LDS, in general a longer life for instance so there is a health aspect to the diet code. I would suggest, however, that it is more for setting us apart from the world, making a public statement about our covenants for the Lord as well as increasing the sense of community and working together by having a common lifestyle/goals.

As far as it not being scripture, I would agree with that comment about caffeine (and there are many LDS who do take that...I for one, though only for medicinal purposes due to health issues, but my husband enjoys a diet Coke---shudder---with his lunch if he's not in the mood for root beer or milk). However when it comes to smoking or alcoholic drinks, it does have a literal scriptural base in the Word of Wisdom where tobacco and strong drink are not to be used for recreational purposes: http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng

It did take awhile for the Saints to embrace these aspects of the WoW (we are still working on other aspects of it) and then accept them as commandments as well (and perhaps this is the part you don't see as scriptural) so I am not sure how soon the health benefits started showing up.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can find an instance from 2011. In the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual for 2011, Lesson #31, Choosing and Eternal Companion.

So it's OK to teach these Deacons, Teachers, and Priests that it's preferred that white boys choose white girls and all other racial arrangements are inferior? Should you screen your potential future spouse based on racial considerations?

QED

Phaedrus

I think your take on it distorts what is being said in the quotation from the manual. See the ensuing discussion, Pahoran's post in particular.

[David T]

I think your take on it distorts what is being said in the quotation from the manual. See the ensuing discussion, Pahoran's post in particular.

While I disagree with most of what phaedrus says, and especially his methodology, I do think the statement (presented first by me, then by him, apparantly not reading forward) effectively answers your call for reference:

"Can you find even one instance in, say, the last quarter-century of "the church ... teaching against interracial marriage"?"

"

[california boy]

Well, I don't know about that, because cultural customs do not necessarily equate to bigotry just for bigotry's sake. Brigham Young and the rest were actually following something that came out of their cultural environment and the doctrines that were imported from Protestantism. I seriously doubt that they were bigots just to be bigots. I think they were following the best light they had at the time, and if they would have had more light and knowledge than they then had, they would have gladly given the priesthood to the blacks. I don't think there was any racial hatred or loathing involved generally. They believed they were constrained by the rational reasons that they had in their minds that the Lord had prohibited those people from the priesthood. That is the fault of whoever made that doctrine up from protestantism. that isn't the fault of the LDS who inherited it.

Ed Goble

This statement sounds very similar to where the church is currently in their attitudes towards gays. It is something I fully believe will change with time as well. And quite honestly, the church leaders are much more tolerant towards gays in general than most of its members.

[Daniel Peterson]

I've never seen the old statement about interracial marriage as racist. Merely realistic.

Especially a generation or two ago, when the children of interracial marriages could expect rough treatment on occasion, and interracial couples might be more or less ostracized.

Today, those factors are, I'm happy to say, much less important. But there are still reasons to be cautious about interethnic marriages.

The sad fact is that lots and lots of marriages fail. Even between people who come from very similar backgrounds. Every additional difference is an additional source of potential friction.

I seriously dated a German girl for a while. She was really down on American kitsch. So am I, to an extent. But it got old after a while. And the Germans have their own kitsch; it's just different from American kitsch. But she didn't like it when I pointed that out. And then, when we got to Christmastime, her (trivial) jibes about American Christmas practices began to really get on my nerves. I like Santa Claus better than I like the Weihnachtsmann. Anyway, after months of this sort of thing (on many daily matters) I decided that marriage with her would be too stressful.

Even with my wife, who grew up LDS in the Denver suburbs and is, culturally, very like me, there are innumerable points of contrast and difference. I keep wanting her to make Norwegian potato lefse; she hates it. I really dislike some of the foods she likes. She could spend weeks at a time whale-watching; I find it amusing for about fifteen minutes. She loves ballet; I used to bring a flashlight and a book, but now (mercifully) she doesn't ask me to go. She is very efficient and businesslike and practical, the daughter of an engineering executive and the sister of engineers; I am . . . not. And so on and so forth.

Every marriage is a merger of different cultures. It's only wise, all other things being equal, to try to minimize the inevitable conflicts.

But that doesn't mean that there is anything sinful in interethnic marriages. As a bishop, I sent several such couples to the temple, and did so happily. And one of my sons, with my entire approval, is scheduled to marry a young woman in April who was born outside of the United States and whose parents, though they now live in a major American city, don't speak English.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I can find an instance from 2011. In the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual for 2011, Lesson #31, Choosing and Eternal Companion.

So it's OK to teach these Deacons, Teachers, and Priests that it's preferred that white boys choose white girls and all other racial arrangements are inferior? Should you screen your potential future spouse based on racial considerations?

QED

Phaedrus

Again lame. There is nothing in the manual about "Deacons, Teachers, and Priests that it's preferred that white boys choose white girls and all other racial arrangements are inferior?" You made this up out of whole cloth. it is a fabircation and nothing more.

This is presicly why I said your comments were lame. You have an agenda to show something that is not there. I hope Nak sees your comments and can now see why I posted what I did.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

See above. Apologize below

Phaedrus

I absolutly will not apologize below. You distored what is being said in the manual.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

While I disagree with most of what phaedrus says, and especially his methodology, I do think the statement (presented first by me, then by him, apparantly not reading forward) effectively answers your call for reference:

Since, given the context of PUT message esp his last part teh CFR still stands.

THe church does not teach against interarial marriage, ie. that all other marriages but white to white marriages are inferior. That was what he was alluding to originally. He just spelled it out more recently.

[David T]

Since, given the context of PUT message esp his last part teh CFR still stands.

THe church does not teach against interarial marriage, ie. that all other marriages but white to white marriages are inferior. That was what he was alluding to originally. He just spelled it out more recently.

Phaedrus is in fact disingenuous in expounding that to say that all other racial matches are inferior. I do agree that the statement is not presented at all as white supremacist, as pahedrus has made it to be.

But I do thinks its important to acknowledge that, as it stands, without additional commentary, it is pro- racial segregation (separate but equal) , as it applies to pairing off in marriage - ie, Interrcacial Marriage. As it stands, it doesn't say a white-white marriage is better than a hispanic-hispanic marriage. But what it does do is counsel counsels against hispanic-white marriages, and even black-hispanic marriages.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But I do thinks its important to acknowledge that, as it stands, without additional commentary, it is pro- racial segregation, as it applies to pairing off in marriage - ie, Interrcacial Marriage. As it stands, it doesn't say a white-white marriage is better than a hispanic-hispanic marriage. But what it does do is counsel counsels against hispanic-white marriages, and even black-hispanic marriages.

And that is bad?

IT also counsels about interfaith marriage and a few other things related to marriage.

[Senator]

Do you believe that an Aaronic Priesthood member hearing this quote would be incorrect if he were to come home and say to his parents, "We read a quote today where the Prophet counseled against marrying someone not of my own race."? Would that be a logical conclusion for a 12-16 year old to come to when reading that statement?

A agree with you Nack, that this statement is antiquated and probably should not be included anymore in the manuals, given the large number of interracial marriages in the church today.

It is simply unnecassary to make such a recommendation today, which can potentially- even if unintentionally- be taken as the church "condoning" one type of marriage arrangement over another.

I can certainly conceive of a child of a mixed race marriage hearing such a recommendation and feeling a bit uncomfortable.