Jump to content

Interracial Marriage, To Mormons, Is Like A Poor Person Marrying A Rich Person, Only Worse!


Log

Recommended Posts

It would have been easier and more accurate just to state it like we do, which is studies show that people from the same cultural backgrounds tend to have less problems adapting to each other in marriage than from different backgrounds, but it was so much more interesting making it a class/race issue, Im sure. :nea:

Link to comment

It would have been easier and more accurate just to state it like we do, which is studies show that people from the same cultural backgrounds tend to have less problems adapting to each other in marriage than from different backgrounds, but it was so much more interesting making it a class/race issue, Im sure. :nea:

Marriage the most wonderful and impossible institution on earth, as I am am sure it will be in heaven.

Link to comment

If church leaders mean "cultural differences" (and I do think that is what they mean now), they should say "cultural differences" and completely drop the word "race." "Race" is a non issue and should be treated as such.

I believe they have. At least for the most commonly used quote IIRC:

http://institute.lds.../m1-mate-1b.asp

The two places identified in the index that are supposedly discussing culture and race in marriage do not have any mention of race that I can find, it would appear that the index was not corrected when the text was changed.

Link to comment

I believe they have. At least for the most commonly used quote IIRC:

http://institute.lds.../m1-mate-1b.asp

The two places identified in the index that are supposedly discussing culture and race in marriage do not have any mention of race that I can find, it would appear that the index was not corrected when the text was changed.

That's good to know. Thanks for posting that.

Link to comment

And when I say "only worse," I mean the report is worse than that!

I don't think it came even remotely close to being as bad as what Lawrence O'Donnell's coverage of the incident was, which I covered here: http://amateurldsapologist.blogspot.com/2012/04/lawrence-odonnells-politics-of-religion.html

And while the church has traditionally discouraged interracial marriage (and some still do, including at least two local leaders I know personally), I don't see it being enforced on a broad scale. I suspect that the issue of race with regard to marriage will continue to fade into obscurity as the church becomes less Cleon Skousen-ish and more Dieter Uchtdorf-ish.

Link to comment

I'm not sure that race is a "non issue". For the vast part of the world's history,race was closely linked to culture.Each race and sub-race carried with it its own unique culture,habits,religion etc. Currently there is sufficient cross-communication and global influence that race has less to do with culture but in more isolated areas,race and culture still influence each other.

Link to comment

I'm not sure that race is a "non issue". For the vast part of the world's history,race was closely linked to culture.Each race and sub-race carried with it its own unique culture,habits,religion etc. Currently there is sufficient cross-communication and global influence that race has less to do with culture but in more isolated areas,race and culture still influence each other.

I don't really consider the United States particularly isolated.

Link to comment

I believe they have. At least for the most commonly used quote IIRC:

I'm guessing the reference is the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual, taught to our young men today, which does say, citing President Kimball, "

“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” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

I'm certainly voting for either a removal of that President Kimball text completely, or at the very least, a striking of the 'racial' and replacing it with the bracketed [cultural]. It blows my mind that this still hanging out there, in current in-use curriculum, using the term 'racial', in 2012.

Link to comment

Some feel that SWK's statement was politically incorrect,but was it wrong? One would need to see the studies of marriages that are interracial,or inter economic,or intereducational etc. and see how they faired. Perhaps a study on the marriages that have lasted 30 + years and the backgrounds of the partners. I'm sure those types of studies have been done. Could the sociologists on the board point us to some sources? Marriage is enough of a challenge without adding areas of potential conflict. Of course there are always exceptions such as the wealthy white ,Harvard educated woman who marries the illiterate untouchable from Mombai and lived happily everafter.

Link to comment

In 2002, the Center for Disease Control published statistics about divorce rates. Their statistics showed that interracial marriages were more likely to end in divorce than same-ethnic marriages. Forty-one percent of interracial marriage ended in divorce compared to 31 percent for same-race marriages. In addition to typical marriage adjustments and stresses, interracial couples may have to work through different cultural assumptions and expectations that are so integrated into their lives that they're not consciously aware of them. Working through these differences can be educational and enriching for the couple.

Read more: Divorce Rates Among Interracial Marriages | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_10073755_divorce-rates-among-interracial-marriages.html#ixzz1uCE3ZgCk

Link to comment

KtG:

I don't believe we pander to it, but we do recognize it does exist.

Of course it exists. Every evil under the sun exists, but when we become enlightened, I think we are expected to move ourselves away from such things. The concept of "race" is a nonissue. I agree that the more commonalities we share with our spouse, the better. But race should not be one of those commonalities any more than hair color, height, weight or any other superficial physical phenotypic expression. Within the church, any barriers that exist because of physical differences in people just should not exist. If we all share the same culture, language, commitment to the gospel and basic expectations of our marriage then the color of our skin and our facial features simply should not matter (providing the couple is attracted to each other and love each other.) Divorce rates in America are extraordinarily high--50%. Should we simply avoid marriage because getting married is the #1 cause of divorce?

Link to comment

Many people isolate themselves within the greater culture and congregate in ghettos to do so. The current situations in Florida and Virginia have much to do with race and little to do with culture.

Though this occurs, it's harder to maintain beyond the 2nd generation. For example my step-dad is 2nd or 3rd gen american (depending the side you look at). All of his siblings have married white. On my bio-dad's side, he's 1st gen american (nigerian born). He married another nigerian-american, but most of his children are mixed, minus the youngest 2. The sibs that are old enough (Me, my bio-dad's son, my mom's son, who's half Moroccan) have no preference on partners based on race. I'm currently interested in a man who's mixed native/white. Isolation rarely lasts. Most (brown) people end up mixing, especially in places where their minority group is highly underrepresented and they're past the 1st gen. A good example would be, say, the U.S. LDS population. Over half of my brown friends in the church who're married have married outside of their ethnic/racial group. The next generation will probably be even more likely to do so (especially since around 50% of children under the age of 5 are an ethnic minority of some sort and there's a huge increase of mixed racial population under the age of 18).

The original quote is largely irrelevant for today. "Cultural background" would be more apt....but then again, just about everybody nowadays will have some cultural differences.

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

Some feel that SWK's statement was politically incorrect,but was it wrong?

As council for today, with 'racial background' being unqualified and highly charged? Yes. It's not helpful or useful today with that language, and certainly has the ability to cause misunderstanding and harm.

Link to comment

KtG:

Sociologically speaking we're more likely to marry the girl/boy next door than we are to marry someone from accross the country. I don't believe we can arbitarily toss out commonalities, just because we don't like the implications. That being said race will continue to be a diminishing factor in marriage, but will never at least in this life, be totally eliminated.

Link to comment

KtG:

Sociologically speaking we're more likely to marry the girl/boy next door than we are to marry someone from accross the country. I don't believe we can arbitarily toss out commonalities, just because we don't like the implications. That being said race will continue to be a diminishing factor in marriage, but will never at least in this life, be totally eliminated.

Even today??? Personally I know very few people who've married people from the same state, let alone town, and plenty who married cross country. Mobility is very common nowadays.

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

Archived

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

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...