Racism In The L.D.S. Church

[NobodyFamous]

Consiglieri,

Thanks for bringing up this topic. As a brand new African-American LDS convert, it was enlightening to learn from my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ about God's desire to segregate the "tribes" and the "intellectually honest imagination" that US blacks are uncouth and uncivilized (at least, those in the GHETTO). Line upon line and precept upon precept, right?

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised given that the Church's teachings on race have become increasingly unclear over time. Take, for instance, the much-celebrated 1978 Declaration making the priesthood available to black men. According to the Declaration, church leaders repeatedly begged God to make the priesthood available to all worthy males and finally, God relented. However, it does not answer the question of Why? Why were blacks not allowed the priesthood? Was it because of the curse against Cain or Ham? Was it because blacks had been less valiant in the pre-existence? Or alternatively, did church leaders finally realize THEY had been wrong?

Without answering this question, the Church has left many members to believe that blacks are somehow inferior to whites (either by curse or through lack of valiance in the pre-existence)? Sure, whites must treat "them" well and even allow "them" into the priesthood, but that doesn't mean that blacks and whites are in fact EQUAL. In fact, black LDS members owe a great debt of gratitude to white members for working so hard to get God to give us a "break." After all, according to the Declaration, if President Kimball hadn't been so earnest in praying for expansion of the priesthood, God would have continued in His racist ways.

And if that sounds offensive to you, imagine how offensive it sounds to ME. I can't believe that MY Lord and Savior, the one who died on a cross to atone for MY sins, would deny me his holy priesthood because of the sins of my descendants (or my actions in the pre-existence). It seems infinitely more likely to me that early church leaders got it wrong; and they should say so. In fact, they should go further and explain that skin color provides no more useful distinction between human beings as does eye and hair color. And in no case should they continue to encourage racial distinctions between the brethren, like the passage from the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3. It simply isn't becoming of the True Church.

[ERMD]

Remember, Christ himself did not go to the gentiles during his ministry, and his disciples were instructed to do the same. It wasn't until Peter's vision that the gospel was preached to all.

For some reason, everything is not made available to all at the same time.

[Mars]

ElijahWasAbel,

First off, welcome to the boards.

Secondly, you pose questions that simply can't be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Why was there a ban? We have no official word. Just speculation and opinion? Was it wrong? A loaded question that merits a much longer answer than I can give here. If we want to delve into that, and there's good reason to, it might be better to start a new thread.

I am white. I don't think my being white precludes me from commenting on what's racist and what isn't, but if the comments are offensive to you, then I can only hope you and God can work it out. If you do believe that authority of God lives and breathes as the Priesthood in the Church, and that the Book of Mormon is a new addendum of scripture, and that Temples provide a way for the living and the dead to re-enter God's presence, I personally hope you'll focus on that rather than the difficulties over denying blacks the Priesthood. I do not in any way blame you for your misgivings, though. Your frustration is well placed.

As for the current topic, that of interracial marriages, I think we're starting to repeat ourselves. Given the American context of racism, which has regrettably persisted up to today, I can see how this statement in the Priesthood manual would offend. But please: The Church, not in this manual and certainly not among current leadership, is NOT saying that there is an equity division among the races. This is simply a recommendation for people to enter upon marriage and have the best chances to succeed.

[cinepro]

Without answering this question, the Church has left many members to believe that blacks are somehow inferior to whites (either by curse or through lack of valiance in the pre-existence)? Sure, whites must treat "them" well and even allow "them" into the priesthood, but that doesn't mean that blacks and whites are in fact EQUAL. In fact, black LDS members owe a great debt of gratitude to white members for working so hard to get God to give us a "break." After all, according to the Declaration, if President Kimball hadn't been so earnest in praying for expansion of the priesthood, God would have continued in His racist ways.

I've only rarely attended wards with black members, but in every case they were treated entirely as equals and I never saw them treated in any way that indicated they weren't equal. Perhaps those members could privately share some stories about instances of racism in the church, but in general, it wasn't a problem.

And if that sounds offensive to you, imagine how offensive it sounds to ME. I can't believe that MY Lord and Savior, the one who died on a cross to atone for MY sins, would deny me his holy priesthood because of the sins of my descendants (or my actions in the pre-existence). It seems infinitely more likely to me that early church leaders got it wrong; and they should say so.

There's a lot to read on the history of the priesthood ban, and I hope you'll learn as much as possible about it and keep an open mind.

Signature books has an entire book on the subject, and there is much good info in it:

Neither White nor Black

As far as where the ban came from, I think Elder Holland's remarks in this interview are especially helpful, and I hope they become well known in the Church:

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

What is the folklore, quite specifically?

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ...

[consiglieri]

Pahoran wrote:

I'm sorry, what "racist concept" is that? I seem to have missed it.

It seems infinitely more likely to me that early church leaders got it wrong; and they should say so. In fact, they should go further and explain that skin color provides no more useful distinction between human beings as does eye and hair color. And in no case should they continue to encourage racial distinctions between the brethren, like the passage from the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3. It simply isn't becoming of the True Church.

I agree with you a million per cent, ElijahWasAble.

And I would like you to meet a friend of mine named Pahoran . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Brian 2.0]

Consiglieri,

It seems infinitely more likely to me that early church leaders got it wrong; and they should say so. In fact, they should go further and explain that skin color provides no more useful distinction between human beings as does eye and hair color. And in no case should they continue to encourage racial distinctions between the brethren, like the passage from the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3. It simply isn't becoming of the True Church.

Hi ElijahWasAbel,

I'm with you 100% on this one. Maybe the church will get to a point where they say that, but it's tough for them to do that without having a lot of other dominos fall behind it when it comes to the reliability of teachings and revelations of the church ("if the prophets got X wrong back then, what's to make me think they don't have Y wrong now?")

It seems the Church would rather take the "we don't teach it now" approach, like they often do with Polygamy.

The response of "it was just God's plan to exclude certain groups for certain periods of time" rubs me the wrong way as well (and I'm a white male). I can't seem to come to a good conclusion of "why" either. And I also can't come to a good reason of "why" for excluding women from holding the Priesthood.

[bookofmormontruth]

Consiglieri,

Thanks for bringing up this topic. As a brand new African-American LDS convert, it was enlightening to learn from my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ about God's desire to segregate the "tribes" and the "intellectually honest imagination" that US blacks are uncouth and uncivilized (at least, those in the GHETTO). Line upon line and precept upon precept, right?

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised given that the Church's teachings on race have become increasingly unclear over time. Take, for instance, the much-celebrated 1978 Declaration making the priesthood available to black men. According to the Declaration, church leaders repeatedly begged God to make the priesthood available to all worthy males and finally, God relented. However, it does not answer the question of Why? Why were blacks not allowed the priesthood? Was it because of the curse against Cain or Ham? Was it because blacks had been less valiant in the pre-existence? Or alternatively, did church leaders finally realize THEY had been wrong?

Without answering this question, the Church has left many members to believe that blacks are somehow inferior to whites (either by curse or through lack of valiance in the pre-existence)? Sure, whites must treat "them" well and even allow "them" into the priesthood, but that doesn't mean that blacks and whites are in fact EQUAL. In fact, black LDS members owe a great debt of gratitude to white members for working so hard to get God to give us a "break." After all, according to the Declaration, if President Kimball hadn't been so earnest in praying for expansion of the priesthood, God would have continued in His racist ways.

And if that sounds offensive to you, imagine how offensive it sounds to ME. I can't believe that MY Lord and Savior, the one who died on a cross to atone for MY sins, would deny me his holy priesthood because of the sins of my descendants (or my actions in the pre-existence). It seems infinitely more likely to me that early church leaders got it wrong; and they should say so. In fact, they should go further and explain that skin color provides no more useful distinction between human beings as does eye and hair color. And in no case should they continue to encourage racial distinctions between the brethren, like the passage from the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3. It simply isn't becoming of the True Church.

(BOLD MINE)

"A brand new convert" and "offended" by the same Church you just joined? You also make the Lord's Church and His servants as "racists" and that "blacks and whites are not EQUAL" in the Lord's Church and yet you decide to be baptized anyway?

I am not buying it, at all.

[bookofmormontruth]

Pahoran wrote:

I agree with you a million per cent, ElijahWasAble.

And I would like you to meet a friend of mine named Pahoran . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

How convenient.

[Pahoran]

Consiglieri,

Thanks for bringing up this topic. As a brand new African-American LDS convert, it was enlightening to learn from my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ about God's desire to segregate the "tribes" and the "intellectually honest imagination" that US blacks are uncouth and uncivilized (at least, those in the GHETTO). Line upon line and precept upon precept, right?

Hi Elijah, welcome to the board.

Question: whom are you quoting, and from what sources?

Are you aware of some reference to any "Ghetto" in any of the statements of the early Church leaders regarding the Priesthood ban? What is the connection between the ban and the Jewish quarter of an Italian city?

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised given that the Church's teachings on race have become increasingly unclear over time. Take, for instance, the much-celebrated 1978 Declaration making the priesthood available to black men. According to the Declaration, church leaders repeatedly begged God to make the priesthood available to all worthy males and finally, God relented. However, it does not answer the question of Why? Why were blacks not allowed the priesthood? Was it because of the curse against Cain or Ham? Was it because blacks had been less valiant in the pre-existence? Or alternatively, did church leaders finally realize THEY had been wrong?

Who are the THEY you mention? You do know, don't you, that whoever instituted the Priesthood ban had been dead for at least a century by 1978?

Do you perhaps hold to some concept of collective guilt? If so, then as a convert, I would encourage you to divest yourself of it, because it is a false and pernicious doctrine. The true doctrine is: We believe than men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. The only person who ever had to bear the weight of anyone else's sins was Jesus.

Without answering this question, the Church has left many members to believe that blacks are somehow inferior to whites (either by curse or through lack of valiance in the pre-existence)? Sure, whites must treat "them" well and even allow "them" into the priesthood, but that doesn't mean that blacks and whites are in fact EQUAL.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it does.

Throughout most of my life, I have lived in wards and stakes led by non-white Priesthood leaders. I have always understood that it was my responsibility to listen to and follow their counsel, and I have been blessed as I have done so. The notion that I am somehow superior to them because of my pasty complexion is arrant nonsense that is unsupported by any scripture or doctrine. I reject it utterly, and so do they.

In fact, black LDS members owe a great debt of gratitude to white members for working so hard to get God to give us a "break." After all, according to the Declaration, if President Kimball hadn't been so earnest in praying for expansion of the priesthood, God would have continued in His racist ways.

Really? Call for references, please. I have read the declaration very carefully; it came out while I was on my mission. I believe I am familiar with its contents, but I cannot presently recall any mention of God's "racist ways" therein.

And if that sounds offensive to you, imagine how offensive it sounds to ME. I can't believe that MY Lord and Savior, the one who died on a cross to atone for MY sins, would deny me his holy priesthood because of the sins of my descendants (or my actions in the pre-existence). It seems infinitely more likely to me that early church leaders got it wrong; and they should say so.

Why?

In fact, they should go further and explain that skin color provides no more useful distinction between human beings as does eye and hair color. And in no case should they continue to encourage racial distinctions between the brethren, like the passage from the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3. It simply isn't becoming of the True Church.

The statement in question does nothing to "encourage racial distinctions between the brethren." It merely encourages single people to seek out potential marriage partners with whom they have as much in common as possible. The notion that this is somehow "racist" is a beat-up, and is without merit.

There is a wonderful couple in our ward with a white husband and an Asian wife. They are both highly educated and have beautiful children.

I wonder what message we may be sending our youth as to how to view this couple . . .

Speaking as the lesser half of one of the "mixed race couples" for whom you show such tender solicitude, permit me to set your mind at rest. We've never noticed any disrespect or any reduction in opportunities for Church service related to our family makeup.

But I will tell you of an experience I had a number of years ago. A young friend (and fellow-countrywoman) of my wife was contemplating marriage to a man who was of the same ethnicity as myself. He also happened to be a recent convert and somewhat older than her. The young woman was unsure of what she should do, and asked my wife and me for advice. I suggested that it might be wiser for her to look for a man with whom she had more in common: someone who had joined the Church independently of his courtship of her, who was closer to her in age, and who had a better understanding of her culture. My wife concurred in all three points.

The young woman went ahead and married the man in question. After only a few years, the marriage broke up, and she is now a solo mother. By contrast, my wife and I are still happily married, but the point is that the counsel in question remains sound, and is supported by research. While opposites may attract, it is commonalities that make for success in marriage.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Log]

Speaking as the lesser half of one of the "mixed race couples" for whom you show such tender solicitude, permit me to set your mind at rest. We've never noticed any disrespect or any reduction in opportunities for Church service related to our family makeup.

But I will tell you of an experience I had a number of years ago. A young friend (and fellow-countrywoman) of my wife was contemplating marriage to a man who was of the same ethnicity as myself. He also happened to be a recent convert and somewhat older than her. The young woman was unsure of what she should do, and asked my wife and me for advice. I suggested that it might be wiser for her to look for a man with whom she had more in common: someone who had joined the Church independently of his courtship of her, who was closer to her in age, and who had a better understanding of her culture. My wife concurred in all three points.

The yound woman went ahead and married the man in question. After only a few years, the marriage broke up, and she is now a solo mother. By contrast, my wife and I are still happily married, but the point is that the counsel in question remains sound, and is supported by research. While opposites may attract, it is commonalities that make for success in marriage.

Thank you for that post, Pahoran.

I've begun to wonder for whom, and to what end, some of Consig's posts are made. The OP is not the way I would have chosen to defend, sustain, or establish the cause of Zion.

[Palerider]

I've only rarely attended wards with black members, but in every case they were treated entirely as equals and I never saw them treated in any way that indicated they weren't equal. Perhaps those members could privately share some stories about instances of racism in the church, but in general, it wasn't a problem.

There's a lot to read on the history of the priesthood ban, and I hope you'll learn as much as possible about it and keep an open mind.

Signature books has an entire book on the subject, and there is much good info in it:

Neither White nor Black

As far as where the ban came from, I think Elder Holland's remarks in this interview are especially helpful, and I hope they become well known in the Church:

"I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know."

Doesn't this statement seem just a little disingenuous, possibly even self-serving? Elder Holland is older than I and I found myself having to defend the church's stand on Blacks and the priesthood numerous times both during and after my mission, using all of the old arguements and scriptures that I had learned from the church. Just asking........

[NobodyFamous]

Are you aware of some reference to any "Ghetto" in any of the statements of the early Church leaders regarding the Priesthood ban?

What is the connection between the ban and the Jewish quarter of an Italian city?

The source for the "ghetto" reference was earlier in this very thread (on Page 1 or 2, I believe).

Who are the THEY you mention? You do know, don't you, that whoever instituted the Priesthood ban had been dead for at least a century by 1978? Do you perhaps hold to some concept of collective guilt? If so, then as a convert, I would encourage you to divest yourself of it, because it is a false and pernicious doctrine. The true doctrine is: <i>We believe than men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.</i> The only person who ever had to bear the weight of anyone else's sins was Jesus.

I'm familiar with Article #2 of the Articles of Faith and find it curious that you aren't equally skeptical of the belief that God would punish black men for the sins of their fathers.

The statement in question does nothing to "encourage racial distinctions between the brethren." It merely encourages single people to seek out potential marriage partners with whom they have as much in common as possible. The notion that this is somehow "racist" is a beat-up, and is without merit.

The problem is conflating race with culture. I agree that people should consider cultural differences when choosing a spouse but people of different races don't necessarily come from different cultures. My four black sons are the product of two Ivy-league educated parents and have lived their entire lives in a lilly-white gated community. From a cultural standpoint, they don't get any "whiter." They enjoy the same music, the same movies, and have access to the same gadgets and gizmos as their white counterparts in our ward. Yet, according to the manual, my son will be <i>encouraged</i> to find a black girl to date because Heaven knows, our church is practically teeming with inner-city wards.

Furthermore, given our history, we simply don't need this type of language in one of our manuals. Trust me, it is hard enough for a black person to get over the priesthood ban. How much harder are we trying to make it for African Americans to receive the restored gospel?

[consiglieri]

I'm familiar with Article #2 of the Articles of Faith and find it curious that you aren't equally skeptical of the belief that God would punish black men for the sins of their fathers.

Bingo!

[consiglieri]

I've begun to wonder for whom, and to what end, some of Consig's posts are made. The OP is not the way I would have chosen to defend, sustain, or establish the cause of Zion.

I like to think that doing away with racism in the Lord's Church has everything to do with establishing the cause of Zion.

But that's just me . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Log]

I like to think that doing away with racism in the Lord's Church has everything to do with establishing the cause of Zion.

But that's just me . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Your post and resulting conversation does not, and never could, accomplish that end.

"Leave the kingdom alone, the Lord steadies the ark; and if it does jostle, and appear to need steadying, if the way is a little sideling sometimes and to all appearance threatens its overthrow, be careful how you stretch forth your hands to steady it; let us not be too officious in meddling with that which does not concern us. Let it alone, it is the Lord's work. I know enough to let the kingdom alone, and do my duty. It carries me, I do not carry the kingdom."

[consiglieri]

"Leave the kingdom alone, the Lord steadies the ark; and if it does jostle, and appear to need steadying, if the way is a little sideling sometimes and to all appearance threatens its overthrow, be careful how you stretch forth your hands to steady it; let us not be too officious in meddling with that which does not concern us. Let it alone, it is the Lord's work. I know enough to let the kingdom alone, and do my duty. It carries me, I do not carry the kingdom."

"Have I done any good in the world today?"

[Mars]

This thread has become ridiculous. Many people, including myself in the 4 posts I've made, have said as clearly as we can that the lesson manual's recommendation was not a statement of division, hierarchy, purity, importance, or worthiness of an individual based on race in any way shape or form.

It was this: (for like the 5th time!!!)

Because marriage is difficult enough to keep going, give yourself the best shot. Differences stemming from background areas including but obviously not limited to: race, culture, heritage, and socio-economic class will make a difficult thing even harder and should be avoided.

Nothing more! No forbidden label, no malediction of those who do otherwise, and certainly no dire warning of those who cross the line. Sounds exactly the word 'advice' to me.

The manual's grouping of 'race' alongside the other factors to consider really should cement the idea that this is not a statement of "Hey white girl, don't marry that filthy black guy." We have membership in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, The Philippines, South Pacific, America, Latin America, Europe, and Africa. That statement applies to all the races without having to change a single word. Yay! We're a world-wide Church after all!

Why do we have to keep repeating ourselves? Why is this answer not good enough? What particular malaise does it not address?

It was never doctrine that black folks are on a lower echelon of worthiness, purity, or spirituality. It was promulgated as such, and Elder Holland said that line of reasoning wasn't doctrine and personally never satisfied him. Several others including myself have echoed this sentiment in clear wording. What happens? Palerider throws Elder Holland under the bus by dissecting his words and ascribing to Elder Holland motives that are purely of Palerider's own design, and consiglieri and ElijahWasAbel ignore everything else everyone else has written and attack the idea that black folks are born on a lower tier because of Article of Faith #2. We all agree! Who the hell on here wouldn't?!

But you know what? Fine. After so many answers that pretty much say the same thing (I'll repeat it again: Blacks are not relegated to a lower status than whites) we're just going to continue fighting.

Keep waiting for that personal apology. Maybe the brethren can come and grovel at your feet. The Church never facilitated or fomented slavery. The Church was outside of the United Freaking States at the time of the Civil War and Reconstruction. The Church is at least as guilty as every other white community that looked the other way during Jim Crow and the civil rights movement. So as soon as the Church apologizes, maybe everyone who was alive from 1955-1978 should stand in line and come do the same.

[Mars]

The problem is conflating race with culture. I agree that people should consider cultural differences when choosing a spouse but people of different races don't necessarily come from different cultures. My four black sons are the product of two Ivy-league educated parents and have lived their entire lives in a lilly-white gated community. From a cultural standpoint, they don't get any "whiter." They enjoy the same music, the same movies, and have access to the same gadgets and gizmos as their white counterparts in our ward. Yet, according to the manual, my son will be <i>encouraged</i> to find a black girl to date because Heaven knows, our church is practically teeming with inner-city wards.

Now this is a fair point.

But I think it's the exception rather than the rule. The rule is held up for the majority of the people, and the exception is given in private counsel where it can be tailored to meet the exception's rare case.

[consiglieri]

But you know what? Fine. After so many answers that pretty much say the same thing (I'll repeat it again: Blacks are not relegated to a lower status than whites) we're just going to continue fighting.

Then should the warlike Harry, like himself,

Assume the port of Mars. And at his heels,

Leashed in like hounds, should famine, sword and fire

Crouch for employment.

Let me try to explain some things from my personal experience which may help give context to my position.

I understand that the Church got in trouble in Missouri because the old settlers believed the Mormons were abolitionists come down from the north to make trouble with their slaves. (Hence the issuance of D&C 134.)

I also understand that other white churches have treated blacks as badly, or even worse, than the Latter-day Saints.

I know that OD 2 was supposed to lay this issue to rest and put blacks on a completely equal footing within the Church now that black men could receive the priesthood, go to the temple, and preside in the Church.

I also understand Elder Holland's statement as an attempt to lay additional issues to rest which were not settled with the OD; being that certain earlier teachings from Church authorities about why it was that blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood were wrong and should not be repeated.

All these things are to the good.

My issue is with this vestige of former days still showing up in the Aaronic Priesthood Manual.

I believe that any treating of people differently based on their race is per se "racist." And this is what the APM quote is. It doesn't matter that other disqualifiers are in there, as well. It doesn't matter that it is couched as advice or a suggestion. It is quoted from a president of the Church who was president when he made the statement, and it is published in a correlated manual which has presumably been approved by the current leadership of the church.

It therefore has binding authority on all members (or at least, the correlated members).

When I joined the Church in the late 1970's, I became familiar with some members who held racist beliefs and used the Church's stance on blacks to support them in those beliefs. These racist Mormons were thankfully in the extreme minority, at least so far as I was aware.

My concern is, at the same time as Elder Holland is publicly distancing the Church from these attitudes, the APM continues to foster them in our upcoming generation.

I believe that, as long as the Correlation Committee was editing the quote from President Kimball, they should have taken out race as a disqualifier for a prospective spouse, or better yet deleted the passage in its entirety.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Nathair/|\]

This thread needs further parody.

Anyone got anything?

[USU78]

This thread needs further parody.

Anyone got anything?

Why be subtle? Mocking the guy waiving the bloody shirt in order to buy votes with appeasement appropriations is great sport.

[Mars]

I don't know, Nathair. I personally think I ought to just relax and back off.

Everything that can be said has been said. I see it from consiglieri and ElijahWasAbel's point of view, and I just plain disagree on the meaning, intent, and scope of the statement. I'm sure they're tired of hearing us repeat ourselves.

And I'm not familiar with Shakespeare, so I don't even know if I've been teased, insulted, or praised. I first thought 'Harry' was a reference to Harry Potter, what with the Barty Crouch part in there. I'm more of an Ohm's Law kinda guy...

[Jeff K.]

Mars

It doesn't matter what you say, nor does it matter how the church places equal footing on all races. What matters is Consig and the usual suspects will take any mistatement, any single sentence, and EXPOUND and explode it into the overall basis for all actions within the church, thus tainting every member with the stain of racism.

It is only then that Consig and his group are happy, and it is only then that they are the happiest.

[bookofmormontruth]

Bingo!

Congratulations!

Since my short stint on here, I have never seen a positive post from you about the Church you profess to belong to, only faithless pot stirring. I know it has been a painful journey for you, but finally, you have found a reason out of the numerous ridiculous reasons to leave the Church you absolutely despise. Who would stay in it with the way you have portrayed it?!

And thank goodness the LDS African-American and Black community have a voice now in this obvious "racist" Church with "racist" leaders. I am sure they are very thankful for you championing their plight as a caucasian.

[Questing Beast]

.." Even the smallest things end up splitting couples. Imagine how difficult it can be when you throw in a non-trivial difference of race and culture in the mix. I'm not saying to avoid inter-racial marriage, I'm just saying to consider it before you tie the knot."

... I understand the sensitivity, but the principle of the message is NOT to communicate hierarchy of race, nor to act on a supposed existing feeling for the intended audience. THOSE I would call racist issues. The Church manual is attempting to be practical.

The first part in bold is surely not a message that the Church wants to promote. To go into marriage with the mindset that it can break up on "the smallest things" is defeatist thinking. I admit that it IS the kind of thinking all too prevalent in marriages today: "It's all about me, and if I am unhappy in my marriage, I can scrap it and go looking for happiness with someone else." Anyone that shallow ought to avoid marriage altogether. The children resulting are de facto collateral damage....