Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[Stone holm]

Tried to. Archives don't seem to go back further than 88.

I did, however, find this cover letter:

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows there from, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to ensure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

SPENCER W. KIMBALL

N. ELDON TANNER

MARION G. ROMNEY

The First Presidency

Fair enough, it wasn't in the cover letter it was in the Deseret News publication on that date. Which was what was picked up by the news networks a published elsewhere, and was what accompanied the announcement in the area of rural Indiana where I lived at the time.

[CASteinman]

I would like to see the Deseret article. But I can't find it

[Stone holm]

I found the excerpt of it which reads just as I remembered it, but I don't want to publish the reference be cause it is in an anti-Mormon diatribe and I don't like to give any more publicity. I will continue to see if I can find the full article. At the time I was somewhat sympathetic to the thought which was from a 1977 devotional that Pres Kimball gave at BYU. What he was trying to convey was that keeping marriages together was hard enough without the potential stress of dealing with racial issues as well. But, now that I have a black step-grandson it has caused me to understand that we are never going to overcome the whole race bigotry thing until most everyone has an uncle, aunt, in-law or grandchild of another or mixed race. Then it will cease to be an issue.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Stone holm

[Yep]

I don't think that the discouragement of mixed race marriages is a thing of bigotry. If you look at the current teachings (I can't remember the text at the moment and I'm on my phone, but it's in an Aaronic Priesthood lesson manual under choosing an eternal companion), it says something about discouraging racial cultural mixed marriages. I believe that the differences in cultures are often greater than is anticipated and can very often lead to divorce. I have witnessed a number of these, and it is difficult for the best indiviuals to survive these. Marriage is hard, added problems are best avoided when possible.

[Calm]

I don't think that the discouragement of mixed race marriages is a thing of bigotry. If you look at the current teachings (I can't remember the text at the moment and I'm on my phone, but it's in an Aaronic Priesthood lesson manual under choosing an eternal companion), it says something about discouraging racial cultural mixed marriages. I believe that the differences in cultures are often greater than is anticipated and can very often lead to divorce. I have witnessed a number of these, and it is difficult for the best indiviuals to survive these. Marriage is hard, added problems are best avoided when possible.

It would not be in the current teachings as the manuals are no longer being used as of this year.

It was also in the Preparing for Eternal Marriage Institute manual, but the racial advice has been removed IIRC while the other cultural (educational and economic backgrounds) attributes they are suggesting be similar remain.

“. . . We recommend that people marry those who are 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,” 142–44)

The ellipses are where it used to say something about from the same race IIRC. It would seem to me that this means the leadership is comfortable with the idea that our society has moved past the point that racial difference itself is a significant problem in marriage. However, this is not true in all countries unfortunately. Still in most countries where it would be a problem, there will also be significant social differences as well so I guess that social really includes that issue where it is an issue.

https://si.lds.org/b...-manual_eng.pdf

This is the only quote on in the lds.org youth section that comes up for "racial" (and none of the "race" hits are applicable):

It is morally wrong for any person or group to deny anyone his or her inalienable dignity on the tragic and abhorrent theory of racial or cultural superiority.

https://www.lds.org/youth/article/print?lang=eng&url=/youth/article/what-is-tolerance Edited March 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

I don't think that the discouragement of mixed race marriages is a thing of bigotry. If you look at the current teachings (I can't remember the text at the moment and I'm on my phone, but it's in an Aaronic Priesthood lesson manual under choosing an eternal companion), it says something about discouraging racial cultural mixed marriages. I believe that the differences in cultures are often greater than is anticipated and can very often lead to divorce. I have witnessed a number of these, and it is difficult for the best indiviuals to survive these. Marriage is hard, added problems are best avoided when possible.

Yes, I understand that it can in some instances place a strain on a marriage. But marriages are falling apart at such a rapid rate anymore, that I doubt it is that much of a strain, and yes I understand it was still in a manual as late as 2010. However, it is difficult not to see it somewhat as promoting bigotry.

[MormonMason]

It would not be in the current teachings as the manuals are no longer being used as of this year.

It was also in the Preparing for Eternal Marriage Institute manual, but the racial advice has been removed IIRC while the other cultural (educational and economic backgrounds) attributes they are suggesting be similar remain.

The ellipses are where it used to say something about from the same race IIRC. It would seem to me that this means the leadership is comfortable with the idea that our society has moved past the point that racial difference itself is a significant problem in marriage. However, this is not true in all countries unfortunately. Still in most countries where it would be a problem, there will also be significant social differences as well so I guess that social really includes that issue where it is an issue.

https://si.lds.org/b...-manual_eng.pdf

This is the only quote on in the lds.org youth section that comes up for "racial" (and none of the "race" hits are applicable):

https://www.lds.org/...at-is-tolerance

I just pulled up the online version at the link. The racial recommendation still is there.

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. In spite of the most favorable matings,

the evil one still takes a monumental toll and is the

cause for many broken homes and frustrated lives.

Now, having quoted that, I am of the opinion that it still can be sound advice. I dated interracially as well as within my own race. I learned that there were things different about the cultures of those whom I dated that could have become problematic later in marriage if we were not on the same page.

For instance, I do not like to be around crowded houses. If I had married the Philippina I had had marital designs upon I would have had a crowded house as relatives tend to expect to be able to live in your home for varying reasons, at any given time, and it is expected. Had I married a traditional Japanese woman it would have driven me nuts for her to seem so subservient to my whim. I liked a certain level of independence in a woman.

So, there are disadvantages to marrying outside of race in many circumstances. Many interracial marriages end in divorce because people have many difficulties adjusting to one another. This adjustment can be worse in interracial marriages and it often is bad enough in same-race marriages. If two people truly can put aside such cultural differences, then more power to them. But, the Church wants for its members to avoid even the chance of divorce, or even increases of stresses in marriage, and marrying out of race and culture tends to put more stress on marriage, particularly when relatives are involved. That is why the Church writers even brought it up at all in the lesson manuals. There was nothing racist about it, in my opinion, although when I was younger I did have a small problem with the manuals for discussing so sensitive a subject with those who dated interracially.

[Calm]

I just pulled up the online version at the link. The racial recommendation still is there.

I would hope so. I don't think past talks should be edited to correlate to current policies.

added:

I just pulled up the online version at the link.

Now that I am thinking about this, I am not sure I understood what you meant. What online version" are you talking about?

There was nothing racist about it, in my opinion

I would agree. It was simply an observation of statistics. Edited March 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[MormonMason]

I would hope so. I don't think past talks should be edited to correlate to current policies.

added:

Now that I am thinking about this, I am not sure I understood what you meant. What online version" are you talking about?

I would agree. It was simply an observation of statistics.

The link you provided above that had the PDF Institute manual at the end of it. The quote is on page 169 of Preparing for an Eternal Marriage.

[Calm]

Ah...the quote is in two places. Very interesting. I've always just looked at the section "Mate Selection" for it. The second quote is in the Marrying for Eternity/Marriage and Divorce section. That section is the full talk given at the time. My comment about being glad they didn't edit the original to match current policies still holds in that if they are going to quote the whole talk, they should quote the whole talk and not just edit out one phrase to make it more PC or whatever.

Edited March 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

I agree that they should not whitewash prior statements. On the other, the manual appears to be out of date since LDS divorce rates have been steadily increasing. This one of those self fulfilling prophecies in that if we keep strongly discouraging such marriages it will tend to one make them more uncommon and two more easy to rationalize the failure when it happens regardless of the cause.

[Calm]

On the other, the manual appears to be out of date since LDS divorce rates have been steadily increasing.

LDS divorce rates are still quite low among temple marriages, I believe, in comparison to the rest of society, especially when both spouses are return missionaries. Where it is not a temple marriage it is consistent with the rest of the culture.

[Stone holm]

LDS divorce rates are still quite low among temple marriages, I believe, in comparison to the rest of society, especially when both spouses are return missionaries. Where it is not a temple marriage it is consistent with the rest of the culture.

Okay I can go with that -- although my guess would be that divorce rates amongst temple marriages are also on the rise or are you referring to Temple divorces?

[Calm]

Okay I can go with that -- although my guess would be that divorce rates amongst temple marriages are also on the rise or are you referring to Temple divorces?

No such thing as temple divorces (there is no ordinance for divorce in the temple ). I try not to use that term because it is too confusing as people then wonder if one means divorces among temple sealings or cancellations and clearances. Cancellations and clearances shouldn't be used for divorce stats because not all those have divorces have a cancellation or clearance of the temple ordinance.

I am talking about civil divorces among those who had temple sealings of their marriages. And it is on the rise, but is still quite low (IIRC below 10%). I will try to find something later on this when my head is clearer.

[Stone holm]

No such thing as temple divorces (there is no ordinance for divorce in the temple ). I try not to use that term because it is too confusing as people then wonder if one means divorces among temple sealings or cancellations and clearances. Cancellations and clearances shouldn't be used for divorce stats because not all those have divorces have a cancellation or clearance of the temple ordinance.

I am talking about civil divorces among those who had temple sealings of their marriages. And it is on the rise, but is still quite low (IIRC below 10%). I will try to find something later on this when my head is clearer.

Okay, excuse the slang. I meant cancellations, as people get civil divorces, but remain sealed to their prior spouse even though they may have remarried via a civil proceeding. I would hope there is a lower rate, but I keep thinking of comments made by my son who indicated that nearly all of his friends who got Temple marriages right after coming off their missions are now divorced -- and looking around our Ward, many of the members who had Temple marriages wound up in divorce -- so its a little hard to credit that it is that low.

[Yep]

The ellipses are where it used to say something about from the same race IIRC. It would seem to me that this means the leadership is comfortable with the idea that our society has moved past the point that racial difference itself is a significant problem in marriage. However, this is not true in all countries unfortunately. Still in most countries where it would be a problem, there will also be significant social differences as well so I guess that social really includes that issue where it is an issue.

While the ellipses may be there in that book, the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3: Lesson 31 still has the complete quote:

Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3

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

“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).

Edited March 26, 2013 by Yep

[ERayR]

Yes, my largest issue is often that the critiqued authority, usually with regards to apostles or prophets, had, or should have had, more "light and knowledge" than I, and most often the critic, have wherewith to inform their opinions, speculations and conclusions. At least that is my opinion.

My opinion is that until I am sure I have an understanding of what they said and that my understanding of holy things is at least approaching theirs I will approach the problem by getting inspiration and guidance of the Holy Ghost rather than arrogantly declaring them wrong. It just seems to work better for me.

[ERayR]

I would certainly hope so. Unfortunately, frequently we don't have the full story until decades later, and sometimes the GA just flat out get it wrong.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that by your perspective they flat out get it wrong. I think it a little presumptuous of you to pronounce your judgement upon them.

[Calm]

Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3: Lesson 31 still has the complete quote

Yes, it does, but it is no longer being used. There is a new curriculum for youth this year and the old manuals are not even listed as resources as far as I can tell even if they are still available on the site.

http://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-priesthood?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

Look at the Church's news release published in the Deseret News announcing the extension of the Priesthood, you will find Pres. Kimball's statement discouraging interracial marriage in it.

My memory (I was 24 years old at the time and a student at BYU) is that there was no such thing written in a Church news release, but rather, President Kimball expressed his opinion on the matter when a question was posed to him by a reporter. That is far different than having it issued in an official news release.

We used to have microfilm copies of back issues of the Deseret News (I work there), but I'm not sure we still do since we moved to a different building in 2010. But I'm sure you could find such microfilm copies at the Church History Library in Salt Lake City, among other repositories.

Incidentally, I hope you recognize that a news story published in the Deseret News does not amount to a news release from the Church. I have found over the years that some people seem to be confused on that point.

[Stone holm]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that by your perspective they flat out get it wrong. I think it a little presumptuous of you to pronounce your judgement upon them.

Possibly, except when they flat out get it wrong -- which is basically what had happened with the Priesthood ban, if you read the new heading associated with it, and the articles now coming out about what was going on. I don't think that is much a matter of anyone's personal perspective anymore. Although, I have earnestly tried to defend the period from when the Prophet Joseph Smith ordained African Americans until the extension of the Priesthood by Pres. Kimball as being God's Will. I just think the numerous and various justifications spun by GAs and Prophets during that period (with the exception of possibly David O. McKay) to have been just that non-doctrinal spin.

[CASteinman]

Possibly, except when they flat out get it wrong -- which is basically what had happened with the Priesthood ban,

So you imagine.

[ERayR]

Possibly, except when they flat out get it wrong -- which is basically what had happened with the Priesthood ban, if you read the new heading associated with it, and the articles now coming out about what was going on. I don't think that is much a matter of anyone's personal perspective anymore. Although, I have earnestly tried to defend the period from when the Prophet Joseph Smith ordained African Americans until the extension of the Priesthood by Pres. Kimball as being God's Will. I just think the numerous and various justifications spun by GAs and Prophets during that period (with the exception of possibly David O. McKay) to have been just that non-doctrinal spin.

I just don't think that is your call to make. I know it is above my pay grade. If it were as you say, flat out wrong, it was corrected 35 years ago. Why are you still worrying that bone?

Edited March 26, 2013 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

I just don't think that is your call to make. I know it is above my pay grade. If it were as you say, flat out wrong, it was corrected 35 years ago. Why are you still worrying that bone?

Probably because some inside and outside the Church still obsess over it. IOW; The good that men do is buried with their bones while the evil lives on and on.

[Stone holm]

Probably because some inside and outside the Church still obsess over it. IOW; The good that men do is buried with their bones while the evil lives on and on.

Possibly, or because sometimes people inside the Church would like to forget it so they can nourish their testimony of infallibility instead of recognizing some cultural quirks as such as the Church continues to evolve and progress.